Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the continuance of civil strife in China is prolonged by the ease with which the contesting parties can obtain arms from Europe, he can state if there is any prospect that the League of Nations Convention on the control of international traffic in arms, which was concluded in Geneva three years ago and has until now been ratified only by two countries, will soon be ratified by the other members of the League Assembly?

Mr. RILEY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government to the stress laid by the representative of France on the Council of the League of Nations on the desirability of ratifying the Arms Traffic Convention; and whether it is proposed to present the Convention to this House with a view to ratification?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The only operative instrument for controlling the supply of arms to China for civil war purposes is the China Arms Embargo Agreement of 1919. The effectiveness of this Agreement has been largely impaired by the fact that some of the principal arms supplying
States, notably Germany, Czechoslovakia, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, are not parties to it. The possibility of making the embargo more fully effective was considered at a meeting of the Diplomatic Body in Peking on the 21st of February last, when the German Minister declared the readiness of his Government to accede to the Agreement. The meeting decided that an identic telegram should he sent by all the representatives to their respective Governments drawing attention to the importance of the Agreement and to the necessity for preventing the exportation of arms and munitions of war to China, and expressing the conviction that those Powers who have not yet taken any measures in this respect should be induced to do so as soon as possible.
On the 1st of March the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs handed a Note to the Soviet Ambassador urging that his Government should refrain from allowing the importation of arms into China by their nationals. Representations have also been made to the Czechoslovak Government by His Majesty's Minister at Prague. Dr. Benes replied that Czechoslovakia could not become party to an Agreement prohibiting the export of arms to China unless it were really an international one equally binding on all States.
As regards the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925, His Majesty's Government are prepared to ratify at any moment when they can secure simultaneous ratification by the principal arms producing Powers. As stated by me on the 24th of November, 1926, His Majesty's Government made this suggestion to the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United States of America, but the replies which have been received indicate that there is no immediate prospect of simultaneous ratification by all these Governmeats.

Mr. HARRIS: Does opposition come particularly from the United States of America to the signing of a Convention of this character?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It comes from more quarters than one, but as to the United States of America such indication
as we have of their policy is that they are not prepared to sign.

Mr. RILEY: Has any of the Governments signified willingness to ratify?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the replies received from the various States were to the effect that they were willing to ratify?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should require notice of that question.


            Lieut.-Commander
            KENWORTHY
          : Would it not, be better if we followed the spirit of the prohibition of arms to China ourselves by prohibiting our nationals, such as Captain Sutton from engaging in munition making?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter altogether.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We are discharging all our obligations.

Mr. HARRIS: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of the Government in relation to the purchase of armaments in this country by foreign Powers; and whether they discourage the purchase of guns, rifles, and ammunition by other nations in this country that might be possibly used against this country at a future date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): In the interest of British trade, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to prevent altogether the export of arms and ammunition from this country to all destinations. Such goods can, however, only be exported by virtue of a licence, and in cases where there is reason to fear improper use a licence is refused.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it the policy of the Government to discourage trade of this character as likely to be hostile to the interests of this country

Mr. WILLIAMS: Clearly; that is why a licensing system is in operation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What inquiries are made to see if arms are to be improperly used?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Every proper inquiry according to the nature of the circumstances.

Mr. MARDY JONES: What guarantee have you that, though they may go to a friendly Government, they will not be used by an unfriendly Government later?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that you only take action when it is a case of arms for the Republicans in Ireland, but not for your own friends abroad?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ARMAMENTS (SECRET SERVICE).

Mr. HARRIS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the use of a secret service by the various members of the League of Nations, in order to obtain information secretly about the defences and armaments of the different States forming the League, has been discussed by the Council of the League or any of its committees; and whether he will consider the possibility of the machinery of the League being used to prevent or discourage these methods of obtaining information, as its use is one of the reasons of international suspicion and friction?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not clear what the hon. Member wishes the League to do, but it does not appear to me that it could intervene usefully in this matter.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that so long as the system of spying on almost every country prevails, all prospect of disarmament is very remote, because the system of spying leads to mutual suspicion?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that spying is the source of armaments, or that the abolition of espionage or the Secret Service would facilitate the cessation of armaments.

Mr. HARRIS: Has this question ever been discussed at the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In the League of Nations, or, at any rate, as far I am concerned with it, it is my endeavour that it should discuss practical and useful propositions.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Has not the British Government gone as far as it possibly can to indicate
its desire to assist in the reduction of armaments when it is possible to come to agreement with other countries?

CONVENTIONS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Conventions have been drawn up by the League of Nations; and how many have been signed and how many ratified on behalf of or by His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Thirty-four Conventions, Protocols, etc., have been concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations. Of these, His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have signed 30, of which His Majesty the King has ratified 24 in respect of Great Britain.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: Are there any other members of the League who have as good a record as that?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should need to examine the records, or have them examined, before I answered that question.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister, arising out of the Report of the International Economic Conference of the League of Nations, whether His Majesty's Government would be willing to take concerted action with a view to promoting a tariff holiday for a period of years among European and other States?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The question of what concerted action can usefully be taken to give effect to the resolutions of the Conference is now engaging the attention of the Economic Committee of the League. I propose to await the result of their deliberations.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whilst this country is waiting for action to be taken, other countries are constantly raising their tariffs against our exports to them?

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
the breakdown of the negotiations for a treaty of alliance with Egypt has in any way altered the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the two conferences proposed by His Majesty the King of Egypt for the modification of the capitulatory regime?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The only conference which has yet been proposed is that referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) on the 7th of March last. It was suggested by the Egyptian Government that the conference in question should meet in the early part of February, but, so far as I know, they have not yet named any actual date. Under the proposed Treaty of Alliance with Egypt, His Majesty's Government would have been ready to support a wide measure of capitulatory reform. As the Egyptian Government have rejected the treaty, His Majesty's Government reserve complete liberty of appreciation and action.

CHINA (SITUATION).

Mr. DAY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the present situation in China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been little change in the situation since my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 19th of March. The Northern forces appear to be assuming the offensive against Feng Yuhsiang on the Peking-Hankow Railway, and have advanced to Linchang in North Honan.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is it a fact that the Nanking negotiations have broken down?

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a very considerable extension of the movement of troops around Canton?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are such continuous movements of troops that I do not like to trust my memory as to the extent to which troops are being removed to any particular part. I must have notice of the question. The Nanking negotiations have not yet led to a successful result, but I have not yet abandoned hopes that they will lead to a settlement.

SUEZ CANAL

Mr. DALTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention between Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey respecting the free navigation of the Suez Canal, signed at Constantinople on 29th October, 1888, is still in force; and whether its provisions have been modified by any subsequent international agreements?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the Convention of 1888 is still in force, subject to the modifications made when His Majesty's Government adhered to its stipulations in 1904 and those which result from the termination of Turkish suzerainty over Egypt.

PERSIA.

Mr. MALONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will enumerate the various important questions outstanding between His Majesty's Government and the Imperial Government of Persia, and acquaint the House with the present state of the negotiations regarding these questions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Negotiations are at present proceeding between the two Governments, and I do not think that a public statement of the different points at issue would conduce to their success.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BOMBING EXPERIMENTS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the experiments to ascertain the effect on a ship s structure of aeroplane bombs exploding under water have been carried out with the largest size bombs against the hulls of actual ships of modern construction; if not, whether it is intended to carry out such experiments; and can he give names of the ships used for purposes of recent experiments of this nature?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The latest experiment to ascertain the effect on a ship's structure of aeroplane bombs exploded below water was carried out against the
"Monarch" with a portion of the side reconstructed to represent the most recent design of underwater protection. The charge used was 2,000 lbs., corresponding to a bomb of about 4,000 lbs.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman, without detriment to the public interest, give the result of these experiments?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I am afraid not.

DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what change has recently been made in the power of the local dockyard authorities at Devon-port to discharge employés without informing the Admiralty; and whether the Admiralty is no longer consulted in advance when discharges take place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: An order was issued by the Admiralty in December last directing that, when as many as two percent of the workmen employed in any, Department are proposed to be discharged, a special report is to be made to the Admiralty before the issue of notices, but if the discharges affect less than two per cent. of the workmen no special report need be made.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many discharges have taken place under this new procedure?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. If the hon. Member wishes it I can find out, but I cannot say off-hand.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men discharged from each of His Majesty's dockyards and Admiralty establishments, respectively, during the last three months; and what further discharges are in prospect?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am obtaining these particulars and will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—what further discharges are in prospect? Does he know?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is rather difficult to give a definite answer. I will try to ascertain the information for the hon.
Member. It is not very easy to say, as so much depends on the work that comes in.

The particulars are as follow:

The numbers of workmen discharged on reduction from the several dockyards, etc., at home since 3lst December, 1927, up to the end of last week are as follows:


Portsmouth Dockyard
145


Devonport Dockyard
255


Chatham Dockyard
80


Sheerness Dockyard
34


Holton Heath Cordite Factory (Works Department temporary entrants)
59


West India Docks Depot
4


Rosyth Dockyard
17


Pembroke Dockyard (Works Department temporary entrants)
90

The further discharges definitely in prospect are:


From Portsmouth Dockyard (Works Department)
108


From Devonport Dockyard (mainly from Works Department)
42


From Chatham Dockyard
10


From Sheerness Dockyard
70


From Woolwich Naval Armament Depot (temporary entrants)
44

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (MINISTRY OF LABOUR APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the assurance given that his Department would raise no objection to the employment of industrial employés of the dockyard for vacant appointments under the Ministry of Labour as third-class officers, he will make it clear, by issuing an instruction to the local officers of the dockyards, that applications from industrial employés, if they fulfil the necessary conditions, are to be treated as other applications and sent forward for consideration?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No useful purpose would be served by issuing such an instruction as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, as the Ministry of Labour do not require any more candidates.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CONCORD" (MESS ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
if he is aware that the usual mess accommodation provided on His Majesty's Ship "Concord" is for 16 engine-room artificers; that in November last 26 engine-room artificers were sent away in this vessel from Plymouth; that in addition there were other ratings on board in excess of the number for which accommodation is provided; that, resulting therefrom, those in the last relay served at meal times got little to cat, and that bath and sleeping accommodation was far from satisfactory; and whether he will ensure that in the future better arrangements will be made for extra crews being taken out to His Majesty's ships, and thus prevent overcrowding taking place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The complement for which accommodation is provided includes 17 engine-room artificer ratings. The ship left for China last month (not last November), carrying 26 engine-room artificer ratings. The total number of ratings carried on this occasion was less than the full complement and therefore no congestion of sleeping accommodation could arise; some congestion of bathing accommodation is possible but, in a trip of this nature must be expected. I am unable to understand the suggestion that food shortage was experienced by any on board, but clearly no such result could have followed from the numbers carried. When His Majesty's ships are employed on trooping trips, it is not possible to ensure that the numbers of each separate rating carried do not exceed those provided in complement, but there is no overcrowding.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for extended benefit that were granted, and the number of claims disallowed, for the last six months at the Walworth Road, Borough, Employment Exchange; and the principal reasons for the rejections of these claims?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Is the number of disallowed claims greatly on the increase?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman had better look at the very elaborate statement I have prepared, from which it appears that the applications numbered 6,618, the applications allowed were 4,612, and the applications recommended for disallowance were 2,006.

Mr. DAY: Is the increase in the rate of disallowed claims due to any special instruction issued by the Ministry?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not prepared to admit that there is an increase. That was not the question which the hon. Gentleman asked.

Following is the statement:

Applications for extended benefit considered by the Borough Employment Committee in the six months ended 12th March, 1928.

Total.


Applications considered
6,618


Applications allowed
4,612


Applications recommended for disallowance
2,006

Grounds for Disallowance.


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment
163


Insurable employment not likely to be available
106


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years
810


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment
611


Single persons residing with relatives
238


Married women who could look for support from their husbands
58


Married men who could look for support from their wives
1


Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance
19

Mr. BUCHANAN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship now being caused to certain applicants for unemployment benefit who have been informed that they cannot receive the same as they are 65 years of age, although they are refused
an old age pension on the grounds that they have not reached 65; and if he can allow any temporary payment to be made until the issue is decided?

Mr. BETTERTON: Arrangements are already in operation for the temporary continuation of unemployment benefit in cases of this kind. I am having inquiries made into the case of which the hon. Member has given me particulars.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that in a case where a dispute arises, and hardship is involved, a temporary payment will be made until the question is settled?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. That is the answer.

DISTRESSED AREAS (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Industrial Transference Board grants to miners and others transferred from one place to another financial help towards the cost of travelling and removal?

Mr. BETTERTON: Arrangements are already made for advancing the fares of workpeople transferred through the Employment Exchanges, and, in the case of insured workers, part of the fare may be paid from the Unemployment Fund. I understand the Industrial Transference Board is considering whether any additional facilities are required.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have any transfers already been made and, if so, to what counties?

Mr. BETTERTON: The question does not deal with that point.

DERBYSHIRE.

Mr. LEE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were signing on at the Employment Exchanges of Chesterfield, Clay Cross, Eckington, Staveley, and Bolsover at the end of February; and whether there are increases at each Exchange since February, 1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


NUMBER of PERSONS on the REGISTERS of certain Employment Exchanges at 28th February, 1927, and 27th February, 1928.




28th February, 1927.
27th February, 1928.


—
Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily Stopped.
Total.
Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily Stopped.
Total.


Chesterfield
…
1,126
761
1,887
2,099
743
2,842


Clay Cross
…
178
475
653
195
568
763


Eckington
…
289
503
792
304
439
743


Staveley
…
201
5
206
271
389
660


Bolsover
…
163
8
171
293
13
306

MINERS, DURHAM.

Mr. WHITELEY: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difference in the number of unemployed miners in Durham between the figures supplied by his Department and those agreed to by the accountants who prepare the ascertainments for the area, namely, 15,582; whether he is aware that the youths becoming available for work are equal to the removals and deaths; and whether the difference between the two sets of figures equals the number struck off the Unemployment Fund?

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think the conclusion which the hon. Member seeks to draw from these figures is well founded, but as the matter is one of some intricacy I should be glad to discuss it with him.

TILMANSIONE COLLIERY, KENT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 150 men and boys were suspended from work by the Tilmanstone Colliery, Kent, four weeks ago; that the men have been signing on at the local Employment Exchange for 20 days, but up to the present have received no unemployment pay; and why there is such delay in settling claims?

Mr. BETTERTON: Inquiries are being made and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman invite the attention of the local Employment. Exchange to this case, because if the Motion of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey)—
That this House asks the Government to give consideration to the question of

taking steps to restore some measure of disqualification of recipients of poor relief for voting at elections of boards of guardians"—

were carried, then in similar eases hundreds of men would be deprived of their votes through no fault of their own?

Mr. BETTERTON: I shall certainly do what I can to have the inquiry expedited as much as possible but I would remind the hon. Member that I only got the reference to this matter yesterday, and it would be unreasonable to ask me to give the result of the inquiries to-day.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of these officers the arrangements made in other coalfields? They should have some knowledge of the arrangements made in every coalfield.

Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said, I will do what. I can to expedite the inquiries which I have already put in hand.

GERMAN WAITERS.

Sir F. HALL: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for which sanction has been given for the admission to this country of a number of Germans to fill, positions as waiters; on whose application this permission has been given; and whether the German authorities have given leave for a corresponding number of English waiters to go to Germany?

Mr. BETTERTON: These permits were for head waiters. Before granting them my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that there was a shortage of men of the necessary skill and experience. The permits were granted to the intending employers, Messrs. Lyons and Company,
who, I may say, make special efforts to train and employ British waiters as far as possible. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information as to the number of British waiters who have gone to Germany, but I have no reason to suppose that the German authorities interpose any unnecessary restrictions.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that a large number of English waiters are out of employment; and does he think it advisable in the circumstances that foreigners should be allowed to come into this country and take work that would otherwise be allotted to Englishmen?

Mr. KELLY: In what quarters did the Minister make his inquiries as to the shortage in this country? Was any inquiry made from the trade union of this industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: I rather think there is some misapprehension with regard to this question, and the answer which I have given. The question relates only to the very limited class of head waiters. It does not apply to the general body of waiters who do not come within that category. I may say that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to do the best he can in the interests of the waiters generally, and he thinks a very limited number of experts from other countries might be of advantage in training English waiters.

Captain STREATFEILD: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this question could be adequately dealt with by a poll tax on all foreign employés in this country?

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give the House the names of the authorities from whom he made inquiries?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend has made inquiries from all quarters where he thought he could get information, and I have stated the conclusion at which he arrived.

BUILDING TRADE, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of building trade workers now unemployed in
the City of Glasgow and the total for the same date last year; and the list of the various trades involved, with the numbers of each trade?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


NUMBERS of INSURED PERSONS in the Building Trade in the Glasgow Area recorded as unemployed on 20th February, 1928, and 21st February, 1927, respectively.


Occupations.
20th February, 1928.
21st February, 1927.


Carpenters
246
174


Bricklayers
75
39


Masons
198
137


Slaters
43
10


Plasterers
83
14


Painters
543
688


Plumbers
117
168


Labourers to above
928
769


All other occupations
894
915



3,127
2,914

MINERS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were registered as unemployed in Yorkshire on 1st January, 1928; and on the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry recorded as unemployed in Yorkshire at 19th December, 1927, was 13,346 (including 5,516 temporarily stopped from the service of their employers) as compared with 21,893 (including 12,434 temporarily stopped) at 20th February, 1928.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman bring these figures to the notice of the Transference Board and invite them not to transfer miners to Yorkshire, where there are already over 20,000 miners out of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is not for me to advise the Transference Board what recommendations they will make, but I will take care, in deference to the request of
the hon. Member, that these particular figures are brought to the notice of the board.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not an understood thing with this new Department that the first chance of employment given to miners should be in a coalfield?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is a question that I could net answer in a supplementary answer, but, broadly speaking, what the hon. Member says is true.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Member say exactly what he means by "temporary stoppage"?

Sir F. HALL: Is it not owing to the unfortunate action of many hon. Members above the Gangway that we have this large amount of unemployment in the mining world?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (CONTROLLER, WELSH DIVISION).

Major OWEN: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that the divisional controller of the Ministry of Labour for the Welsh division has retired and that an official without any knowledge of the Welsh language has been appointed to succeed him, why an official without any knowledge of the Welsh language has been appointed to a post where a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language is essential in order to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently and satisfactorily?

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the appointment of a non-Welsh speaking official as divisional controller of the Ministry in Wales; and whether he will make the necessary arrangements to appoint to the post someone who is conversant with conditions in Wales and who possesses knowledge of the Welsh language?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) on 22nd March. My right hon. Friend does not see his way to alter the arrangements already made.

Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large proportion of the work which this officer has to do is in the Welsh language, and would he advise the appointment of a Welshman over an area in England; and is it not possible for some justice to be done to an integral part of the Kingdom, instead of ignoring it in this fashion on every opportunity?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not be in the least afraid that any injustice will be done. I have no doubt it is perfectly true that a knowledge of the Welsh language is a qualification, but it is not the only one. I have no doubt it would apply also, for instance, to a Welsh Member of Parliament.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the Minister willing to consider applications from Welshmen who cannot speak English, for positions in England?

Mr. BETTERTON: Each application will be considered on its merits when it comes.

An HON. MEMBER: Is there any reason why Welshmen should not learn to speak English?

Mr. BETTERTON: None.

Mr. E. EVANS: Is it not the fact that the Divisional Controller found it of very great assistance to him, in making his decisions, that he was conversant with the Welsh language?

Mr. BETTERTON: No doubt, as I have already said, it is a qualification, but it is not the only one, and all the circumstances were taken into account by my right hon. Friend when he made the appointment.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that very few people who speak Welsh are much good at anything else?

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. My point of Order is that although the question on the Paper is not mine, as a Welsh Member I am vitally interested in this matter——

Mr. SPEAKER: called the next question.

VALUATION OFFICE

Colonel WOODCOCK: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of land valuers who were employed immediately prior to the ending of the Land Value Duties, and what was the total amount of their salaries at that time and the number and salaries of the land valuers at present employed in the Inland Revenue Department; will he state the number of land valuers, with their salaries, who have been transferred to other Departments during this interval, and the nature of the duties at present carried out by the land valuers; whether any of these duties had been previously carried out satisfactorily by other branches of the Inland Revenue Department; and was this supplementary staff required to perform these duties?

1st July, 1914.
1st August, 1920.
1st March, 1928.


—
Numbers.
Salaries.
Numbers.
Salaries (basic).
Numbers.
Salaries (basic).


Chief Valuer
1
1,200
1
1,200,
1
1,500


Deputy Chief Valuer
1
900
1
1,000
1
1,200


Chief Valuer, Scotland
1
875
1
1,000
1
1,100


Assistant Chief Valuer, Scotland
1
800
1
850
1
900


Assistant Superintending Valuers
14
11,750
13
11,000
12
11,050


Assistant Valuers, 1st Class
103
63,215
118
79,500
110
80,610


Valuers, 2nd Class
101
39,415
118
51,950
125
61,606


Valuers, 3rd Class
59
15,160
147
44,980
97
33,292


Valuers
753
165,660
5
2,065
—
—


Valuation Assistants
1,554
155,400
—
—
—
—


Totals
2,588
454,375
405
193,545
348
191,258

No record in general exists of the employment taken up by the large numbers of staff whose services in the valuation office ceased to be required. Eight established valuers, whose salaries, exclusive of bonus at the time of transfer aggregated to £5,390 have been transferred to other Government Departments since 1914.

The duties at present carried out by the Valuation Office are described in Command Paper No. 918 of 1920. Values for landed property for death duty purposes were at one time settled by the Estate Duty Office, without the resources of local knowledge or practical possibility of viewing the property. The work of the Valuation Office in this connexion is necessary, and could not be discontinued

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): As the answer to this question is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Are these civil servants in profitable employment, or will they be supernumerary to establishment?

Mr. SAMUEL: If these officials were done away with, there would eventually be a loss to the revenue.

Following is the answer:

The land value duties ceased in 1914 to operate effectively, but were not repealed until the 4th August, 1920. The following statement shows the numbers and salaries of valuers at those dates and the present time:

without loss to the Revenue coupled with increase of the Estate Duty staff.

WAGES.

Mr. STEPHEN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of reduction of wages suffered by the workers of this country since the Government took office till the present time?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Statistical Table summarising the available information as to increases and decreases in rates of wages since November, 1924.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman not tell us the total amount of loss of wages since the date mentioned?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman had better look at the tabular statement which I have prepared, and he can then add up the amounts.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that the industries which have been safeguarded are those in which the rates of wages have been maintained, or in some cases increased?

Mr. STEPHEN: Could the hon. Gentleman's Department not add up the amounts? I asked for the total.

The following TABLE shows the number of workpeople, in the industries and services for which statistics are available, whose rates of wages were increased or reduced (so far as reported to the Ministry of Labour), in the period November, 1924, to February, 1928, and the net amount of increase or decrease in their weekly rates of wages. The figures for 1928 are preliminary and subject to revision.


Period
Approximate Number of Workpeople whose Rates of Wages were—
Total Net Amount of Increase or Decrease in Weekly Wages.
Net Increase (+) or Decrease(-) in the Weekly Rates of Wages of those affected.




Increased,
Reduced
Increase.
Decrease.







£
£
£


1924—November
…
691,000
62,600
50,100
3,460
+ 46,640


December
…
502,000
8,750
29,200
300
+ 28,900


1925
…
873,000
851,000
80,900
159,000
- 78,100*


1926
…
420,000
740,000
133,000
83,700
+ 49,300


1927
…
282,000
1,855,000
30,700
388,500
- 357,800


1928—January
…
149,000
245,500
8,950
16,350
- 7,400


February
…
54,000
521,000
2,850
46,100
- 43,250


*If agricultural labourers were included in the statistics, this decrease would be converted into a slight increase.

These statistics are exclusive of changes affecting agricultural labourers, Government employés, domestic servants, shop assistants and clerks, as to whom similar figures are not available. The changes in wages reported are, in the main, those arranged between organised groups of employers and workpeople; many changes among unorganised workers, especially those affecting employés of individual firms are not reported.

It should he added that in November, 1924, the cost of living index figure stood at 80 per cent. above the pre-war level as compared with 64 per cent. on 1st March, 1928.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

CAIRO TO CAPE FLIGHT.

29. Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman will find that the statement in tabular form is very exhaustive. I take it he regards the question as a serious and important one; therefore, I have done my best to give him the information he desires.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman state the decrease in unemployment since the Government took office?

Following is the table:

House particulars of the flight made by Royal Air Force biplanes between Cairo and the Cape; and whether any forced landings have had to be made en route?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoons): This flight is being carried out as a routine exercise of the same nature as the corresponding flights undertaken in 1926 and 1927. Four Fairey III.F aircraft with Napier Lion engines left Cairo on 1st March. One machine was damaged when taking off at N'dola in Northern Rhodesia on 16th March; the personnel sustained no injuries. The remaining three aircraft proceeded on the flight and reached Cape Town without forced landings en route on 25th March. The flight is due to leave Cape Town on 31st March, and will be joined at Pretoria by a detachment of the South African Air Force, which will accompany them as far as
Khartoum. The combined flights will carry out co-operational exercises with the local forces at Tabora and Nairobi. The Royal Air Force flight is expected to return to Cairo on 3rd May.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Baronet say the reason for the forced landing of one of the machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: No. I have not had any details.

AIRSHIPS (CONTRACTS).

Mr. ROSE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will furnish a list of names of firms with whom contracts exceeding £2,000 in value are already made for the supply of works or materials in connection with the Cardington-Howden airship scheme?

Sir P. SASSOON: The list for which the hon. Member asks is of some length, and I propose, therefore, with his permission, to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

The Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co., Ltd.

Babcock and Wilcox, Ltd.

Zwicky, Ltd.

Roads Department, Ministry of Transport.

R. & J. Dempster.

Braithwaite and Co., Ltd.

S. Cutler and Sons, Ltd.

The Armstrong Construction Co., Ltd.

The British Mannesmann Tube Co.

W. Laughton.

Harahinji Hakinji (local contract in India).

T. McLeod and Partners.

C. G. Spencer and Sons, Ltd.

Stainless Iron and Alloys Co.

Perseverance Mill Co., Ltd.

E. Heyworth and Sons.

J. Booth and Co. (1915), Ltd.

Wm. Beardmore and Co., Ltd.

Peter Brotherhood, Ltd.

Boulton and Paul, Ltd.

Puckeridge and Nephew, Ltd.

Metal Propellers, Ltd.,

The above list has reference tho contracts in connection with R.101 and to works carried out under contract with the Air Ministry; the construction of R.100 and works at Howden are covered by a
single contract with the Airship Guarantee Company, and it would be contrary to established Government practice to give particulars of the sub-contracts made by that company.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

SANITATION, RURAL DISTRICTS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the sanitation of many rural districts is unsatisfactory; that local authorities are seldom able, for financial reasons, to exercise the powers they possess; that consequently the Public Health Act of 1878 is to this extent a dead letter; and whether he will introduce legislation to modify the Public Health Acts as they affect villages and afford local authorities financial help from the Exchequer?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The question raised by the hon. Member is at present, with other questions of local government, engaging the attention of the Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Lord Onslow. My right hon. Friend must await the result of their deliberations, though he may say that he could hold out no hope of Exchequer assistance towards purely local obligations of this kind.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when those deliberations are likely to be made public?

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and expedite the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Are the Commission also considering the question of small villages with a water supply quite beyond their scope?

Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not already part of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Local Government? Will they not deal with this question?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already made that answer.

PETROL (LEAD TETRAETHYL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Inter-Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the effects of petrol doped with lead tetraethyl has yet been set up; if so, of whom it consists; what are its terms of reference; and how soon he expects the Report, especially that part of it affecting the health of the general public and the users of this fuel?

Sir K. WOOD: The composition of the Committee on ethylated motor spirit is now practically complete, and it is hoped to make an announcement in the course of this week. The terms of reference are
to inquire into the possible dangers to health resulting from the use of motor spirit containing lead tetraethyl or similar lead containing compounds, and to report what precautions, if any, are desirable in connection with the use or handling of such motor spirit.
It is impossible to say when the Report may be expected.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On which day of the week does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make that announcement? If I put a question down for Friday, will he be able to answer it then?

Sir K. WOOD: I hardly think that Friday would be a suitable day.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: To-morrow?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say. We are waiting for some answers to invitations sent out.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the whole of the Report be published, or portions?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait for the Report.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say if the whole Report will be published?

Sir K. WOOD: No.

NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POOLUTION).

Major CARVER: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention
has been called to the recurrence on a large scale of the destruction of sea birds through floating oil; and whether he proposes to investigate such cases with a view to police court proceedings?

Mr. WILLIAMS: A White Paper, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend, was issued last May showing the extent of oil pollution round the coast. The complaints received since then do not suggest that the evil is increasing, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any definite information, I shall be pleased to consider it. Proceedings under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act are taken by local authorities and persons, not by the Board of Trade.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there any real progress yet in the use of separating machinery on board ship?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I shall have to ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUBBER IMPORTS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the import of rubber into this country has been for each of the last six weeks, and for the corresponding period of last year?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Figures as to imports of rubber are not available for periods other than calendar months. The total imports of crude rubber into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered in February, 1928, amounted to 19,900,000 lbs., valued at £1,300,000, and in February, 1927, to 27,500,000 lbs., valued at £2,200,000.

COTTON INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATIONS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the introduction of such amendments to the Finance Act, 1927, as will enable existing firms engaged in the cotton-spinning trade to amalgamate without payment of capital and transfer duties?

Mr. SAMUEL: Representations on this subject have already been made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and are receiving his consideration.

SHIPS (INSPECTION).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of inspectors who are employed in the inspection of ships at home ports, and the number of ships involved and total tonnage; and the same figures for 1914?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Survey Staff of the Board of Trade, which is responsible for the inspection of ships, numbered 191 in 1914, and 198 in 1928. All ships, British and foreign, in United Kingdom ports are liable to inspection.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member give me the figures of the total tonnage involved?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is almost impossible to give a satisfactory figure on that basis, because the same ship may come into a home port on several occasions, but all ships are liable to inspection.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the number of British ships involved in this inspectorate?

Mr. WILLIAMS: All British ships are involved.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say the increase in the tonnage in 1928 as compared to 1914?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Off-hand I cannot, but, broadly speaking, as far as I can make it out, the inspectorate has increased in proportion to the increased tonnage of ships.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say if no British ships sailing for foreign ports sail under some breach of the Regulations and whether the Consular officers have similar powers of inspection to the inspectors in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Major CARVER: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether recent investigations still support the opinion of his Departmental Committee, set up in March, 1925, to inquire into the conditions of the export-trade in horses from Great Britain to the Continent, to the effect that everything
possible is being done for the comfort and well-being of horses on sea journeys?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Yes, Sir. Only 25 fatal casualties occurred during the sea passage out of 30,930 horses shipped to the Continent during the years 1925 to 1927 inclusive, which is a better record than that for the three preceding years upon which the Departmental Committee commented favourably. In accordance with the recommendation of the Committee the carriage of horses is not allowed when there are reasonable grounds for anticipating adverse weather conditions likely to cause injury or suffering to the animals.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is this export trade in horses increasing or diminishing?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is decreasing.

TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines what reports have been received from his officers regarding the condition of tin mines in Cornwall, especially the effect on the health of the workpeople?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The health conditions of these mines are inspected by one of His Majesty's inspectors stationed in Cornwall, and his reports show that generally they are satisfactory and have improved of recent years.

Mr. KELLY: Have there been any recent reports, say within the last six months, on the health of the miners?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that provision is made for the tin miner, when he comes to the surface, to change from his wet clothing into dry clothing?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Quite obviously, I must have notice of that question.

Mr. KELLY: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines the output of the tin mines in Cornwall for the year 1919, 1920, and 1927, respectively?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The output of dressed tin ore from mines in Cornwall was 4,454 tons in 1919, 4,123 tons in 1920, and 3,694 tons in 1927. In the same years 674, 709 and 454 tons respectively of dressed ore were produced from other workings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea as to why there is a decrease in production in view of the fact that the price of tin is so high?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that I have not looked into that point.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the heavier demand for tin at this time, has the hon. Gentleman discovered why so many of the mines are closing?

Commander WILLIAMS: Is not it a fact that there are more mines open today than four years ago?

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that is not correct?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Were not several hundred tin miners suspended from work in the Penzance area recently?

CHINA CLAY INDUSTRY, CORN- WALL.

Mr. KELLY: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any reports from his officers as to the conditions of the china clay industry in Cornwall, and particularly the effect on the health of the work-people?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The reports of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines stationed in Cornwall indicate that the health conditions of these mines are good, and no cases of disease due to the conditions of employment have come to his notice.

Mr. KELLY: Has there been any report as to the effect upon the health, resulting in tuberculosis being prevalent?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The answer states that no cases of disease due to the conditions of employment have come to his notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. WHITELEY: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can furnish
the quantities of finished products from low-temperature carbonisation plants, and the tonnage of coal used in the several coalfields?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. (Grenfell) on the 20th March.

SELLING SCHEMES.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to a scheme promoted by the Scottish coalowners for regulating the selling price of coal; and can he say in what respects it differs from the schemes proposed by coalowners in other districts?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As the reply involves a long statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The main provisions of the selling schemes now under consideration in the coal industry are summarised below:

Scottish Scheme.

(a) A tonnage levy on all coal raised, except coal for shipment, and coal for associated and ancillary undertakings.
(b) A special tonnage levy on coal for certain scheduled classes of consumers.
(c) Payment of compensation out of the funds raised by the special and general levies in respect of the curtailment or output capacity.

South wales Scheme.

(a) A tonnage levy on all coal raised.
(b) The grouping of coals and the fixing of prices for each group.
(e) Penalties for selling below the minimum prices.
(d) The payment of compensation out of the funds raised by the levy and the penalties in respect of shifts lost through the operation of the minimum prices.

Midland Scheme.

(a) Fixing of basic tonnage for each undertaking on the basis of the output in any of the 15 years ended 31st December, 1927, selected by the undertaking.
1171
(b) The restriction of output by the application of a quota percentage to basic tonnages.
(c) Penalties for raising coal in excess of the quota.
(d) A tonnage levy on all coal raised.
(e) The payment, out of the funds raised by the levy and the penalties, of financial assistance to coal exported.
(f) The consideration of the formation of a central shipping bureau to deal with sales for export.

CLOSED MINES, FIFE.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many pits are proposed to be closed, or partially closed, in the County of Fife within the next few weeks; what companies have given notice to their men; how many men are involved; and if this step is part of the new scheme of the Scottish coalowners?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no information of the proposals for closing pits in the County of Fife.

YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries were working full time in Yorkshire on 19th March, 1928, and how many were working only three days each week on the same date?

Mr. WILLIAMS: During the week ending 17th March, 60 pits employing 20,900 wage-earners worked full time, 136 pits employing 139,500 wage-earners for four or five days, 38 pits employing 19,400 wage-earners for three days and 15 pits employing 1,800 wage-earners for less than three days.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give time for the discussion of the Motion standing in the names of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and other Members—
["That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of Ministers is necessary when their own Estimates are under discussion on an allotted day in order that they may reply to grievances voiced by the Commons before Supply is voted."]

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

POST OFFICES (LICENSED PREMISES).

Viscountess ASTOR: 47.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any post offices are located in licensed premises; and, if so, whether these are licensed for on- or for off consumption?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): It is the general rule of the Department that post offices should not be established in licensed premises; but in exceptional cases where suitable alternative accommodation is not available it is sometimes necessary to place an office in premises where an off-licence is held. No post offices are situated on premises where an on-licence is held.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does it seem quite right that, as children under 18 are prohibited from going into public-houses, you should allow the sale of drink from host offices?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: These offices are located in rural grocers' shops.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers of his Department in Scotland have done their best to turn the offices in no-licence areas into advertising agencies for various brands of proprietary poisons?

Viscountess ASTOR: And is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that there is a case in Beckenham, Kent, in which the parson has written to the Postmaster-General complaining of this, that the Postmaster-General has promised to look into it, and that so far nothing has been done?

Sir W. MITCHBLL-THOMSON: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of such a case, I will look into it.

Mr. MARDY JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot, secure suitable premises, other than licensed premises, why cannot he build his own premises?

Viscountess ASTOR: What! Do you want more?

Mr. MARDY JONES: I mean post offices.

Viscountess ASTOR: I thought you meant more public-houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Mr. STEPHEN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of liability at present on the Exchequer on account of the Trade Facilities Acts and the amount of loss that has taken place from the initiation of this legislation until the present time?

Mr. SAMUEL: In reply to the first part of the question, the total present amount of the Exchequer liability in respect of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts, after allowing for repayments and other adjustments, is £70,394,133. In reply to the second part of the question, the loss is £59,485, subject to possibility of part-recovery, as stated in the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) on the 1st March.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Are guarantees still being given in respect of loans which are issued from time to time?

Mr. SAMUEL: Speaking from memory, no.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it possible to get the details of the losses?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer which I gave on 1st March, he will find a good deal more detail than I have given in my reply to-day.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that there are no issues being made at the present time, either privately or publicly, in respect of these guarantees?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman means that trade facilities are being extended, I am of the opinion, speaking from memory, that no further guarantees are being given, and that if any business is being done, it is merely to finish up work begun some months ago.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY AND MUNITIONS LEVY.

Mr. STEPHEN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts and repayments of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy during the present financial year to date; the amount of arrears still outstanding; and the amount thereof likely to be realised?

Mr. SAMUEL: The gross receipts of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy from 1st April, 1927, to 17th March, 1928, was approximately £5,460,000. The repayments were £5,468,000. This shows a nett outgoing at that date amounting to £8,000. I am unable to furnish any estimate of the arrears remaining to be collected or of the amounts to be repaid.

PALESTINE (LIQUOR LICENCES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of liquor licences now operating in Palestine and the number that existed under the Turkish régime; and if any of the present licensees are Moslems?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the, hon. Gentleman to the figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) on the 19th of March. No information is available as to the number of licences granted under the Turkish régime, nor am I able to say whether any of the present licensees are Moslems.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, as we are in Palestine primarily to help the natives, it seems a pity that we should introduce the most unhelpful of any commodity in the world, namely, whiskey?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think that we are.

SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Mr. WELLS: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, arising out of the recent troubles in the Solomon Islands, how many tribesmen have been imprisoned at Sinarango, Malaita; how long they have been in prison; how many have died in prison; and how long will those left have to wait before their trial can take place?

Mr. AMERY: The arrests have ranged over a wide period, the first arrest being made on the 31st October; 191 arrests had been made by the 6th February. I have no official information as to the number of prisoners that are detained at Sinarango or as to any deaths among them. A judicial officer has been sent
from Fiji to the Protectorate for the trials, and it was expected that these would open at the end of March.

Mr. WELLS: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the inquiry into the recent troubles in the Solomon Islands will take place?

Mr. AMERY: It is hoped to arrange for the Commissioner to reach the Protectorate during June.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

Sir HENRY COWAN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to public rights of way.
The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce has for its object—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear a word!"]—the simplification of the methods of proving whether a disputed right of way is or is not a public right of way. The law in regard to private rights of way is governed by the Prescription Act, 1832, and under that Act it is extremely simple to ascertain at a minimum of cost whether a right of way over private land giving access from one private estate to another is or is not a right of way, but the position in regard to public rights of way is very different. I would like, in the first instance,, to satisfy the House that there is an urgent need for such a Bill as the one I am asking leave to introduce. In order to do that I ask to be allowed to quote the words of a very eminent authority on this subject:
It is unfortunate that since 1832. when the Prescription Act was passed, and private rights of way were put as regards the evidence of their existence on something like a rational basis, no step should have been taken as regards public rights of way. It is quite true to say that the law on this subject is in a state of great confusion. Presumption of dedication in the case of public rights of way is almost as vague and elusive as was the presumption of lost grant in the case of private rights of way before the Act of 1832 was passed. This Bill"—
And this Bill is the same as the Bill I am asking leave to introduce to-day—
proceeds upon proper lines, that is to say, it attempts the analogy of the Prescription Act of 1832 and proposes to apply that analogy to public rights of way.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but on this side we are very anxious to know the purport of the Bill, and we cannot quite hear whether it is intended to ease the establishment of rights of way or to close them. We are quite at a loss to make out the object of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member himself and his Friends should listen.

Sir H. COWAN: I submit that the purport of the hon. and gallant Member will best be served by allowing me to continue my speech without interruption.
Therefore I think the principle of the Bill is a very valuable one.
Those words were used by Lord Haldane when he was Lord Chancellor in 1909 and a Bill practically identical with the present Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. Lord Haldane went on to say:
The Bill has been through a Select Committee in this House two years ago; but it is desirable, so far as its drafting is concerned, that it should be looked at from one or two points which I notice. In the meantime, so far as the Government are concerned, we cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that it will pass into law with any improvements which we may find it possible to make. For these reasons, if your Lordships think fit to pass the Bill through this House, we will give such support as we can to it in another place.
I have to apologise to the House for saying that that statement was made in 1909. It was made in 1913. The pledge which the Lord Chancellor then gave on behalf of the Government of that day to give facilities for passing the Bill through the House of Commons could not be redeemed on account of the intervention of the War. In subsequent years the congestion of public business, in this House in particular, made it impossible. I understand, for subsequent Governments to deal with the matter, but I would like to call attention to the fact that this Bill is no stranger here. It was introduced in the first instance by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition in 1907, when it was read a Second time without opposition and passed through Committee.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Agreed!

Sir H. COWAN: In the year 1908, it again passed Second Reading and through Committee. In 1909 I myself re-introduced it. In the year 1910 it was again reintroduced. In 1911 it was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Eversley, that venerable defender of public rights, and was referred to a Select Committee presided over by Lord Alverstone. It was introduced into the House of Commons in 1912. It was carried through the House of Lords without opposition in 1913. It was carried through the House of Commons in 1914. It was again introduced in 1927.
The Bill is intended to remove a very grave difficulty in ascertaining whether or not a track over private land is a right of way. As the law now stands, that can only be established by the presumption of dedication, and dedication means that some owner, either the present owner or some former owner, must have dedicated the land or the path to the use of the public, either expressly or by implication. It is difficult in these cases to find anything in the nature of a grant or written deed, and the Courts have usually taken the view that where an estate is held in fee simple, where it is freehold, where it is not encumbered, by entail or otherwise, that the owner may be presumed to have dedicated the right of way if the public have been using the path for 20 years or, at the most, for 40 years; but where a right of way passes over land which has been in family settlement for a number of years, perhaps for a long period, perhaps for a shorter one—where the land is subject to that limited tenure, where the owner is really only a life renter, it is extremely difficult to establish a public right of way. It is a sufficient answer to the suggestion that there is a public right of way to prove that there was no body vested with the full proprietary rights in the land and in a position to dedicate it. A tenant for life cannot do it, no one but the absolute freeholder, and the result is that very many rights of way in all parts of the country have been closed to the public because it has not been possible to satisfy our Courts that there has been any person in a position to dedicate the land to the public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
This Bill provides that where a right of way passes over unencumbered land
20 years' user is sufficient to establish public rights on that way, and where it passes—and this is the material alteration in the law—over settled or entailed land 40 years' user gives the public an indefeasible right of way. Owners of land are protected against any danger of new rights of way being set up under this Bill, because they are expressly given the right to erect notices which will bar any such possible danger. The alteration in the law for which we are asking is in accordance with the existing law in Scotland. Scotland leads the way here, as in so many other cases.
Another reason why I ask the House to pass this small Measure is that it will save an enormous amount of unnecessary expense in litigation. In a recent case the taxed costs amounted to £15,000, and in other cases costs have amounted to £2,000 or £3,000. This Bill is promoted by the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, an organisation which for 60 years has looked after the public interest in footpaths and commons, an organisation which to-day is acting as a mediator in all questions between land owners and the public, and which has fathered many useful Bills which have passed through this House and the House of Lords. No fewer than 500 local authorities have passed resolution in favour of this Bill. For all these reasons I ask the House to give me leave to introduce this Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Campbell, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Fenby, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Mr. Hurd, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Major Owen, Mr. Rentoul, and Mr. Trevelyan.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.

"to amend the law relating to public rights of way," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday 19th April, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

FIREARMS.

Mr. HAYES: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend Section 12 of the Firearms Act, 1920, with respect to the definition of firearm.
The reasons for carrying into law such a Bill as this have been made known to hon. Members to some extent by questions and answers in this House, and Iam hopeful that the Home Secretary will be able to see his way to accept this Measure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has full sympathy with the object of the Bill. The existing law provides for the registration of those who deal in the sale of firearms, and it also makes it necessary for those who desire to become possessed of firearms to obtain a certificate from the police of the district. The definition of a firearm is laid down in Section 12 of the Firearms Act, 1920, and in effect means a weapon capable of discharging a bullet or other missile. In recent years, there has been produced abroad and in this country a firearm known as the toy pistol or the toy revolver. So far as the toy purpose is concerned, there is no desire to make it subject to the Firearms Act of 1920, but since that time the toy weapons to which I have referred have been found capable of easy conversion into lethal weapons. Not only this, but these toy weapons have been discovered by certain undesirable members of the community to be capable of supporting threats or menaces in an endeavour to commit some crime. In addition to this, there have been numerous accidents resulting from the free use and trade in this particular weapon. I shall content myself by giving to the House one or two cases which could not have occurred if this Bill had been the law of the land, and which have occurred owing to the looseness of the law as it stands at the present time.
In North London quite recently, an individual who was sentenced to a long period of penal servitude, was discovered on arrest to be in possession of a life preserver and one of these toy weapons. These toy weapons may be obtained for a few shillings from anyone engaged in the trade without having to obtain a certificate from the police. The particular toy weapon to which I have referred was capable of conversion into a lethal weapon. This conversion can be accomplished by the simple mechanical process, occupying but a few minutes, of having the barrel and the chamber bored. This process makes the toy revolver capable of discharging bullets. The tests which
have been carried out by the police with one of these toy pistols, so converted, show that it is capable of causing a bullet to enter and pass through a ¾inch plank at a distance of 90 feet, and at a little less distance than that the bullet became embedded in the wall immediately behind the plank. There is a general feeling that the toy weapon is not quite so dangerous as this Bill seeks to make out. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), as the Recorder of Manchester, had a case before him in which some motor car thieves were prosecuted. One of these weapons was found on one of the prisoners arrested and the hon. and learned Member for Norwood commented upon the dangerous character of it. I propose to show to the House the type of weapon which we seek to exclude by this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think there is an ancient Rule against the carrying of arms of any sort in the House.

Mr. HAYES: According to the law, the weapon which I hold in my hand is not an arm. According to the Home Secretary's replies to questions, this pistol is not a firearm within the meaning of the Act, at any rate in London. It is merely a toy weapon, and I think that your alarm, Mr. Speaker, at the sight of this weapon is sufficient justification for asking the House to pass a Bill of this kind. The legislation I am asking the House to pass seeks to make the sale of this weapon possible only through a registered firearms dealer, and it also seeks to make it purchaseable only by persons who have received a certificate from the police showing that they are fit and proper persons to be in possession of firearms.
Seeing that this particular kind of weapon has been used within the last few weeks to hold up a post office in which the only person in charge was a postmistress, who was held up successfully from the criminal's point of view; knowing something of the mental agony people go through when a weapon of this kind is pointed at them; and, in face of the fact that this proposal is supported by Judges, Magistrates, Coroners and the police service and all those who have a knowledge of the extent to which these weapons are being used, I am sure that
hon. Members, in giving a First Reading to this Bill, will feel that they are helping the Home Secretary to meet a situation with which I know he is only too anxious to deal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hayes, Mr. Grace, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Burman, Captain GarroJones, Mr. Dennison, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Crawfurd, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Dixey, and Mr. George Hall.

FIREARMS BILL,

"to amend section twelve of the Firearms Act, 1920, with respect to the definition of firearm," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements) Bill,

Weaver Navigation Bill,

Oxford Corporation (Water, etc.) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Special Report brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill,
Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill,
British Guiana Bill,
Sunderland Corporation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the grading and marking of agricultural produce and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Warwick to acquire lands; to provide for the extinction of the rights of depasturage in St. Nicholas Meadow; to construct ariver wall and promenade; to make further provision with regard to the water supply, health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Warwick Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for regulating the capital and altering the constitution of the Governments Stock and other Securities Investment Company, Limited, and repealing the Governments Stock and other Securities Investment Company, Limited, Acts, 1887 and 1900; and for other purposes." [Governments Stock and other Securities Investment Company Bill [Lords.]

Warwick Corporation Bill [Lords],

Governments Stock and other Securities Investment Company Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

POLICE DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

FALSE OATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 88.]

Orders of the Day — PAUPER VOTES AT GUARDIANS' ELECTIONS.

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: I beg to move,
That this House asks the Government to give consideration to the question of taking steps to restore some measure of disqualification of recipients of poor relief for voting at elections of boards of guardians.
I should like to preface my remarks in moving this Motion by saying that I always have considerable sympathy with anyone who tries to address the House immediately after Question Time, and that, perhaps, I may be permitted to extend a certain amount of sympathy to myself in trying to do the same thing this afternoon. The subject of this Motion is, I am aware, a matter of considerable controversy. I do not wish to cause too much controversy, and I hope that any impressions of that kind that I may create by my remarks will be put right by those who follow. In looking over past Acts, and recalling the Reform Bill of 1832 as too old, and the Poor Law Bill of 1834 as equally too old, I came to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law and Relief of Distress in 1909, and on page 64 of that Report I find this general statement:
The question how far relief from the public assistance authority should disenfranchise its recipient is more closely connected with the relief of the able-bodied than with any other class of recipients of public assistance. We hold generally to the principle that those who, either from misfortune or otherwise, have failed to manage their own affairs successfully, ought not by law to have power to interfere in the management of the affairs of others. But public assistance often assumes a transient form, and we are not disposed to disenfranchise wholesale and unconditionally all who receive it. We, therefore, recommend that only those persons be disenfranchised on account of public assistance who have received assistance, other than medical relief, for three months or more in the aggregate in the qualifying year.
That, I think, states the case that I have in my mind a great deal better than I could state it orally or in writing.
If the promised Bill, which the Minister of Health in 1926 proposed should be introduced in the following year, is to be held over, it is being held over for some
reason which none of us in this House so far seems to understand. We are anxious to get that Bill, because the control of elections ought to be in the hands of those who understand and have studied the subject. It happens that during the last London County Council election a great deal of influence was brought to bear upon the voters in the various constituencies throughout London in the direction of recommending them in no circumstances to vote for Municipal Reformers, and stating that their living depended on supporting the so-called Labour party. It also happened that in South Poplar one of the relieving officers was a Labour candidate. The State is asked to bear burdens which it ought not to bear. It ought, in my view, to be the desire of every citizen to endeavour to bear his share of the burden to the utmost possible extent. In view of the statement which I have just read from the Report of the Royal Commission, it follows, I think, from the fact that so many able-bodied men are coming on to the Poor Law, that they are not trying to carry the burden as some of them might do. There is competition for places on the boards of guardians; there is competition between one board of guardians and another, especially where they have access to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund; and altogether we are creating, without any doubt, a state of pauperism in a certain section of our community which is destroying the moral fibre of its citizens.
When I was in America, a friend of mine, who knows this country very well, said that he wondered how Great Britain could expect to recover her status while she permitted and encouraged laziness amongst the able-bodied to hamper her progress. I felt that there was considerable reason in that, because it vas exactly my own view. The teaching in our schools all too infrequently advocates that sturdy independence and self-reliance which used to be characteristic of the British race. Thrift seems to be no longer a preached creed; it seems to be one of the creeds that recently we have been doing our best to forget. One of my special points in bringing forward this subject to-day is that the burden on industry has become intolerable by reason of the local rates which our industries have to bear. There are sheltered
municipal workers up and down the country who are put there by people who have helped to put the guardians in the places which they occupy, and, when any section of sheltered employés is in receipt of wages which it does not legitimately and economically earn, that naturally depresses the chance of the energetic and careful worker who is doing his level best to keep himself and his family in their natural independence.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order in the course of this Debate to discuss the wages and conditions of municipal workers, when the Motion refers only to disfranchisement in the terms set forth on the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that an hon. Member when introducing a Motion is entitled to describe what he thinks is the state of affairs which he wishes to reform. He cannot put his Motion forward unless he is allowed to do that.

Mr. HARVEY: I am, personally, more concerned with the industrial supremacy of this country than anything I can mention, and anything that any hon. Gentleman can suggest by means of which we can redeem that supremacy ought to be done, and every possible effort made to that end. There is one section of the community with whom I have the greatest possible sympathy, because their wages have been depressed. I refer more particularly to the engineers, especially the engineers as I know them in the North of England, whose wages have been very much depressed because works cannot pay by reason of the heavy local taxation to which they are subjected by the operations of the guardians.
It might not be out of place to refer here to the removal of the disability that took place when the Representation of the People Act, 1918, came into operation. There had been a Speaker's Conference previous to the introduction of the draft Bill, and in 1917, when the matter was subjected to a general discussion on the Floor of the House, there was a ridiculously thin House. Clause 8 of the old draft Bill was one that had been recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and it suggested a certain modified measure of restriction. I think I am
correct in saying that a Mr. Whitehouse, who was then the Leader of the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was the Leader of the Labour party, anyhow, who put up a very strong opposition to the Clause, and, generally, the Clause was protested against by a very strong section at that time—as strong a section as could be expected in that ridiculously thin House—and eventually it was accepted and passed by the action of the then Home Secretary—I think Mr. Hayes Fisher—but being accepted and the disability removed, I remember very well a remark that was made by the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury (now Lord Cushendun), who made some very apposite and trite remarks on the removal of the disability. He made the prophetic statement that he thought it would be subject to considerable abuse in the long run. I imagine that if he looked back to-day he would think how very correct was his anticipation, because it absolutely fits the case to-day.
There is a business axiom, and I think it is a common-sense axiom—because all business is simply common-sense; some people do not seem to know how to exercise it, and some do—the business axiom that franchise should be given for service rendered. I think that when the franchise is given to a citizen of any description, some responsive service ought to be given back by that citizen to the State, and in the case I am mentioning concerning the able-bodied, that is not being done. When I am speaking about those who receive Poor Law relief, I would like it to be understood that I am referring exclusively to those who are known to be able-bodied paupers. I would like to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary, because it refers to a Bill which is coming before the House to-morrow, and it is entirely apposite to this question. There is one section of the community that is bled white by certain sections of local administration, and has no voice whatever in the spending of its own money. I think it is high time that, inasmuch as we have given votes to paupers to pay themselves in relief indirectly, the limited companies which, in many districts, provide the funds, ought to be given some say in the administration of those funds, more especially when I read the statement
which my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has made in various places, that some of these limited companies in some East End districts pay as much as 38 per cent, to 40 per cent. of the total rates, and have no voice whatever in the administration thereof.
I would suggest that we cught to give a mandate to the Government to do something to remedy one of the evils created in 1917–18. I know we were then in the shadow of the War. Everything was being subjected to that shadow, and I do not wonder at it, but that time has gone by. Some of those who shout the loudest suffered the least. But the fact is, that we are creating in our midst, by reason of that administrative error, as it might be called, a body of professional able-bodied paupers which, in some districts, reaches an alarming percentage, and, inasmuch as we have them about us, some remedial measure ought to be considered to put that glaring injustice right. I want it to be understood that I am making no reference whatever to the distressed industrial areas. There are some areas, especially in the part of the country from where I came, where trade has suffered very seriously, and has been lost through no fault of the men themselves, nor, for that matter, of the employers, and I wish I could say that of the coal trade. But inasmuch as there is this serious disability which we have to face, I would not like it to be thought that I would impose, if I had the chance, any particular disability upon them in any shape or form except by reason of the fact that there is a section of their community, in certain parts of London, simply taking advantage of the position which was created in 1918. There is no doubt that we want very badly the Poor Law Reform Bill, and the present onerous work of the guardians ought to be taken away with the least possible delay. That section of our community which is like a dismantled ship, which seems to have nowhere to go, and is drifting about at the mercy of the wind and waves, is that part which it ought to be the determination of His Majesty's Government, and every individual both in and out of this House, to do the best he possibly can to correct and thereby help to remedy the
difficulty connected with our industrial depression, so that work could be found to make able-bodied paupers an impossibility.
Amongst that section, ambition, as we knew it in our early days, seems to have disappeared. When I first came to London as a boy I had no money to play with. I had a pound in my pocket and made it do, but I came to London with the ambition to succeed or get out. Some measure of success came from working not six or seven or eight hours a day, but 16. Ambition seems to have gone, pride seems to have gone from the individual very largely, and lassitude and dull carelessness appear to have taken their place. That is a very deplorable state of affairs which, judging by the remarks of some hon. Members on the Opposition benches, seems to create a certain amount of amusement. Abuses of the Poor Law are not exaggerated. A little while ago the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), addressing some Bermondsey friends, made the remark that if the men with whom my Motion deals were disfranchised at the guardians' election, it would make all the difference to the election. I do not think it worth while, perhaps, to refer to the remarks of the vice-chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians, but what he very bluntly said to the disparagement of his colleagues for many things they had done was illuminating.
I have tried in, perhaps, a halting sort of way to bring before the House a state of affairs so that it may stand some chance of recognition and be dealt with by the Government at the first possible opportunity. I have tried, in the few remarks I have made, not to be provocative, but to state the ease as I know it, and as I have seen it in operation. I have had a lot to do with municipal life. If I have stated a case that deserves some attention at the hands of the Government, I have fulfilled the object with which I accepted and carried out this Motion. I should like to close with a reference to an old and very unlamented friend of my boyhood, who tormented me many and many a time, and say "Q.E.D."

Mr. TASKER: I beg to second the Motion.
No Member of the House and no member of any municipal authority can be unconscious of the use and the misuse of the franchise in connection with elections of boards of guardians, borough councils or county councils. My work is not confined to six, seven or eight hours a day or even to 12. I possess one advantage in having at one time occupied an official position with a board of guardians, and the revelations there were enough to stagger any ordinary man. To-day, things are much worse than they were 30 years ago. In those days one was confronted with contractors who thought they could do what they liked. Sometimes they did and sometimes they did not. Then they came in conflict with the officials of the Local Government Board. To-day things are very much worse because there is a system of what might properly be described as wholesale bribery. Human nature being what it is the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will realise perhaps even more than I do that if specious promises are made you are apt to get the support of a certain section of the community. He speaks from experience. I do not.
My hon. Friend, in moving this Motion, generalised. I should like to specialise and give one or two actual cases. In London and in Westminster a charge of something like £800,000 was levied from each city last year as a contribution to the Common Poor Fund. They had practically no control over the expenditure. Holborn contributed £140,000. They have no control over the expenditure except in an extraordinarily limited degree. Much of the money has been squandered. Is it fair to mulct the people in one part of London and make them pay an additional 1s. in the £ on their rates in order to relieve Poplar and other boroughs? You can get extravagant boards of guardians with a pauper vote. If you examine the records you will find that where the largest ratepayers are there you will get representatives who will take care of the ratepayers' money just as they do of their own. It is so easy to be charitable with other people's money. One of the great evils to-day is that it is allocated to representatives who are voted in by the pauper vote. We in other parts of London feel very acutely that a very grave injustice is being done,
and it ought to be removed as speedily as possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, (Mr. Wheatley) when he was Minister of Health pronounced a very great truth when he said
No form of relief so surely demoralises a neighbourhood when unwisely administered.
Is there anyone experienced in social work who would for a moment pretend that the rates are wisely expended in certain boroughs? Anyone who has done any social work knows that a certain proportion of money, whether expended from rates or from charity, is bound to be unwisely expended. What good you do with one hand you can undo by creating an evil with the other. It is surely unfair to mulct the City of London in £874,014 and Westminster in £883,003 and to spend £500,000 of that in another area in London. What are the guardians doing in the districts where there is an abnormal proportion of the population suffering from distress? I refer hon. Members to the Report of the Ministry of Health. It is from that book that I have culled my information. In that Report the inspector used these words:
Under the administration of the Bermondsey Guardians it has been possible for a man who has been convicted of defrauding the guardians and assaulting, the police, and has done very little occasional work, to be maintained in an unsatisfactory home for six years.
This could not go on for six years without the knowledge of the receiving officer, and there can be no doubt in, anyone's mind that that was duly reported to the guardians.

Mr. LANSBURY: And to the Minister.

Mr. TASKER: It may have been. One knows that many cases have been reported to the Ministry and one admires the undaunted firmness with which the Minister has dealt with certain very glaring cases and he seems to have been very unwearying in exercising the prerogative he possesses. In some parts of London the tremendous amount of relief has aroused a storm of passion amongst those who have to contribute. It is not only large employers who have to pay these rates. They fall heavily upon others. Hon. Members opposite forget that as the rates go up they are transferred to the rents and it is spread not over a small group of individuals but over the whole community. Why
should decent honest craftsmen who are the great majority, have a tribute levied upon them to support lazy, idle, worthless fellows who go to the guardians and draw nearly as much money as the operatives in a skilled trade? I am not speaking so much on behalf of employers of labour as on behalf of the working men of London. Operatives in the building trade have no desire to support such cases as I am now going to give. Here is a man described as a lazy fellow and a very unsatisfactory case. Relief was given him for three years varying from 44s. 6d. to 52s. 6d. a week. Here is another case. The relief began in February 1921, at the age of 23. Seven years afterwards, the man was still receiving that relief and the only work he has done in four years was a little hop picking and four months' fruit picking. Here is another case of a man aged 26 who has been receiving 44s. a week since 1921. I am giving the report of His Majesty's Inspector, and I am doing this in order that I may illustrate my own experience. There is another man who was dismissed from his job for theft, and he has been receiving 44s. 6d. a week since his discharge, and he has done no work since. May I deal with another portion of London? The Inspector goes on to report upon Greenwich and Deptford:
One person in 15 of the population of Deptford and one person in 18 of the population of Greenwich are receiving Poor Law relief.
It is obvious to anyone who has gone through even one election that if he were to promise "If you will return me, I will see that your rents are reduced" or, in the candidature for the office of guardian, that "your relief shall be increased," he might be assured of the votes of a certain section of the community. That is not the section of the community which I desire to encourage. It is the section of the community I desire to discourage, because, to my mind, they are human parasites. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of talking about parasites among the rich, but I would remind them that there are parasites at the other end of the scale.

Mr. HARDIE: You admit the others as well.

Mr. TASKER: May I give the case of a man who has been in receipt of relief since September, 1921. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go back to the Army!"]. I do not mind going back to the Army if the hon. Gentleman will come with me and undergo the same service as I did. Here is the case of a man who has been in receipt of relief, and his fellow ratepayers have had to pay £537 to him alone. Here is another man with a wife and four children. He has drawn £677 19s. 6d., and in addition has had boots and clothing. There is another case of a man who has not done a day's work for 4½ years and who has received £423 in relief, plus clothing. One can go on and give dozens of cases, and my hon. Friends opposite know it. There is another case of a man who received £580. Surely, it is not fair, right, just or proper that that type of man should be put on terms of equality with the decent, honest citizen who works and toils and struggles to make two ends meet. I submit to the House that it is time that that condition of affairs was brought to an end. You will find little better condition of affairs existing in Shoreditch. I have chosen London in order that I may get an answer, if possible, from some hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent those constituencies. If you take the proportion of people in receipt of relief in the whole of the United Kingdom, you will find that they did not number more than 296 per 10,000, but if you take a place like Shoreditch you will find the average was 831, or one in 12.
Surely, there is something very discouraging in the social work, something very wrong, and I am looking with confidence to hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite to support this Motion in order to bring to an end something which we all admit is indefensible. In 1927, more than 56 per cent. of the persons in this country in receipt of relief had been receiving it continuously for over one year. My hon. Friend suggests that a Bill should be brought in to the effect that a man should be disfranchised after he had been in receipt of relief for about three months. I believe that that is a general idea held by members of boards of guardians in London. We are not referring to sickness benefit. We are referring to those cases where men de not want work.

Mr. SCURR: Would the hon. Gentleman mind giving us the authority for the statement he has just made regarding the 56 per cent.? He has quoted from some document.

Mr. TASKER: I am quoting from the eighth Annual Report of the Ministry of Health, namely, for the year 1926–27. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any later figure than that, because the returns have not yet been issued. That is the document. There are men in receipt of relief who are known to frequent racecourses; there are pickpockets and the like. Why should these men enjoy the same privileges as the operative, the clerk and the men honestly employed? As the Ministry of Health inspector states:
there is the greatest perplexity concerning these people.
the men who never attempt to work and who are living, in fact, on the exertions of their fellow men. Why should they enjoy the same privileges as those who put in eight, ten, or twelve hours' work a day? In Woolwich, the story is very little better. The inspector reports that one-third of the out-door relief is given to able-bodied persons in contravention of the Relief Regulation Order, 1911. It might be said that it is the duty of the Minister of Health to see that those Regulations are observed and enforced. Even a Minister of Health cannot check and control every abuse in the numerous municipal administrations under his charge, but it is in the power of this House to bring to an end the condition of affairs revealed in the document which my hon. Friend opposite has produced. In showing the approximate effect on the local rates, he referred to the recipients of the various funds and also the amount credited to each union, and I think that if one would only study this question he would be bound to come to the conclusion that the evil is so great and so far-reaching that no time should be lost in bringing us back to a sane condition of affairs. I know that some hon. Gentlemen believe that they are helping the unfortunate, but I think they are floundering about in a sea of folly. They are not really helping. Much of what they are doing is only helping the lazy, the idle and the indolent, and I am quite sure that they do not desire to do that.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that there is a desire growing up among certain sections of young men to get a job where the work is put out.
I do not pretend that I possess a greater genius for administering the work of boards of guardians than any hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would suggest that they should give very serious thought to the contingent of loafers who exist in London, and who, I have no doubt, exist in the provinces as well. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen are not cheering me. It is a very pleasant interruption. There is a certain type of guardian in London at least—[Interruption.]—I really do not know whether this is an exhibition of wit or of folly, but it seems to me to be rather an indication of imbecility. There is a certain type of guardian who shows and displays incompetence and who is unacquainted with the really deserving poor. I think the sooner their services are dispensed with the better. I am sure that we ought to be grateful to the Minister for putting in temporary acting guardians to replace those so-called popularly elected representatives. They—the temporary guardians—have managed to send a lot of those idle persons back to work and considerably to reduce the expenditure which had been incurred by their predecessors. It appears to me that the reasons set forth by some of the so-called elected guardians did not possess the intelligence of a glohigerina. They are almost as idle and worthless as the men they help to support. [interruption.] These ladies and gentlemen are in possession of our purses. [Laughter.] Well, they are! Incapable of producing wealth themselves, they squander the fruits of our energies. They do not realise apparently, that, when rates are driven up, there is such a thing as taxes, and that one way of getting money from our purses is to add to the rateable value of the property from which extractions are made for rates and taxes. In that way, the unfortunate householder is hit twice if he happens to hold property inhabited by the working-classes. He knows that the waste of money is going to be reflected in the amount of rents charged to the unfortunate operatives who live in those houses.
I think I have shown that there is a reason why this matter should be raised, and I commend it to the distinguished
Minister sitting on the bench in front of me. I have not exaggerated the situation in the least. I want an opportunity to be given to the decent working men of London, and one of the ways to help them is to bring about a reduction of the rates. That cannot be done, as long as you allow the idle and the worthless to manipulate, through the ballot box, the return of ladies and gentlemen who indulge in practices which help nobody; who are not concerned really about the working classes of this country, who are not concerned about commerce and, apparently, are not concerned very much about anything, except a little self-glorification. It is an intolerable condition; it is one which we resent in London, and I hope that action will be taken to ensure that this Motion will receive recognition by the Government.

Mr. DALTON: I rise to oppose this Motion, which has been put forward in two of the most doleful and uncharitable speeches that I have ever heard in this House. The two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Motion are colleagues of mine in the representation of London constituencies.

An HON. MEMBER: Lucky fellows!

Mr. DALTON: They will be luckier still if, after their speeches have been read by their constituents, they continue to be my colleagues in the next Parliament. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey) said that he wished the House to give a mandate to the Government to disfranchise from voting at guardians' elections persons who receive Poor Law relief. That is an admission of a point which I was going to make, that the Government at present possess no such mandate. The Conservative party did not at the last General Election propose that if they were returned they would take away votes from any section of the electors of this country. I challenge both the hon. Members whether at any public meeting in their constituencies during their election campaigns they invited the electors to vote for them in order that those votes might afterwards be taken away. I challenge them to get up now and tell this House that they ever mentioned this question at a public meeting in their constituencies at the last election.

Mr. TASKER: If I had had an invitation from the hon. Member I should have been happy to do so.

Mr. DALTON: That is about as good a reply as I could have expected from the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Kennington preserves a masterly silence.

Mr. TASKER: What bearing has it?

Mr. DALTON: I will explain what bearing it has. I say that this Government has no mandate to do what the hon. Members demand, and that neither of the two hon. Members nor any other Conservative Member of Parliament went to his constituents at the last Election and said: "Vote Conservative, and when von have put us in we will take away your votes if you receive Poor Law relief." No mandate has been received from the electorate by the present Government, and I submit that it would be a gross breach of democratic decency if the Government were to interfere with the electoral law in this respect before another General Election has taken place. If, on the other hand, they choose to insert this proposition as part of their programme at the next election, and if they are again returned, the situation will be different, but at present they have no mandate to do it.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Had the Labour Government any mandate to lend £44,000,000 to Russia?

Mr. WESTWOOD: We never lent it.

Mr. DALTON: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether you would allow me to give a full reply to that question, but I think I could give a good reply, if it were in order. I am very anxious, however, to keep as close as I can to the terms of the Motion. I want to analyse the classes of people against whom the two hon. Members have directed their arguments. Who are the people who receive outdoor relief whom the hon. Members seek to disfranchise?

Mr. HARVEY: The able-bodied.

Mr. DALTON: Able-bodied! It is as well that we should know exactly what the hon. Member is proposing. Am I to understand that old people who receive Poor Law relief are to be allowed to go on voting?

Mr. HARVEY: On a point of Order. The Motion that I moved related entirely to the proposition of the Royal Commission of 1909, which I read to the House.

Mr. DALTON: The Motion says:
That this House asks the Government to give consideration to the question of taking steps to restore some measure of disqualification of recipients of poor relief for voting at elections of boards of guardians.
I gather from the hon. Member that the old people are to be allowed to vote. The disabled are to be allowed to vote. The able-bodied are to be disfranchised. If I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected. A great many ex-service men are still able-bodied. The hon. Member no doubt realises that. Therefore, he is definitely proposing to disfranchise able-bodied ex-service men who have received Poor Law relief. Is that true?

Mr. TASKER: Grossly inaccurate.

Mr. DALTON: I have asked the Mover of the Motion. Will he contradict me when I say that he wishes to see able-bodied ex-service men who receive Poor Law relief deprived of the vote? Is that true?

Mr. HARVEY: Within a certain period of the election only. The Report which I have read says so. Within a certain period prior to the election.

Mr. DALTON: Within a certain period prior to the election, but within a certain period after the War. I note that important admission from the hon. Member. He said that when the present law was instituted we were living under the shadow of the War. He has got out of that shadow now, but a lot of other people have not. The hon. Member having said that the present law was instituted when we were living under the shadow of the War, proceeded to say, "That has gone by.' The country will be glad to understand from this Debate exactly what it is the hon. Member and his friends have admitted. They are out, among other things, to deprive of the vote, so far as elections of boards of guardians are concerned, those men who fought for their country and had the luck to come back. That is what they are out to do. These men are to be allowed to go on wearing their Mons Stars and their War medals, but they are to be
turned out of the polling booths. They are to be allowed to march to the Cenotaph on Armistice Day, but they are not to be allowed to march into a place where they can record their votes. We are getting a wonderful, new interpretation of the patriotism of the Tory party.

Mr. TASKER rose——

5.0 p.m.

Mr. DALTON: The hen. and gallant Member for Islington East (Mr. Tasker) is addressed according to the courtesies of this House as an hon. and gallant Member. He served in the Army and he has retained his title, as he is quite entitled to do, in his subsquent political and public life. Does he think that it is right, does he think that it is decent to come to this House and to propose that men who, perhaps, served in the same unit as himself during the War and who since that time, through no fault of their own, have been compelled to go to the guardians for relief, because they have nothing else to live upon, should be branded as men unworthy of citizenship; that the last rag of the garment of citizenship should be torn from their backs by the Tory party, the party which at the General Election prates about its patriotism and its concern for the ex-service men? Does he think such conduct is right? If he does, then I sympathise with his moral obtuseness. We have now extracted an admission that one of the desires of the two hon. Members is to disfranchise able-bodied ex-service men. They can tell that to the British Legion.
I will go further. Who are the rest of the population whom it is proposed to disfranchise? Able-bodied men such as those about whom we had a Debate last Monday arising out of the conditions of distress in the coalfield; miners who, through no fault of their own, see all the pits around them closing down, and who were described in fitting language-by the Minister of Health during that Debate, when he said:
You cannot have such distress, such unemployment and such impoverishment as obtain in South Wales to-day without their having some effect upon the health of the people, but it is not merely physical; it is very largely psychological. That is, I think, the tragedy of the situation, that people's hearts are broken, and they no longer have the courage, the spring and the spirit which enable a man to face up-to his difficulties, and feel confident that
he can overcome them. They are disheartened and they are discouraged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1928; col. 841, Vol. 215.]
That is a very fair and very true statement by the Minister of Health as regards the situation of that unfortunate population. To-day is it proposed by way of heartening them and of encouraging them to say: "Although it is not your fault that you are in this condition, you are not going to be allowed the ordinary rights of citizenship any longer. You are going to be deprived of the right to vote at guardians' elections"? These men have been punished through no fault of their own but through the impact of economic forces. If we ask who is responsible for this condition of affairs it would be possible to argue the matter and to show that the fault is the fault of His Majesty's Government, through their handling of the unemployment problem or, rather, their failure to handle it, through their return to the gold standard, through their manipulation of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and through that wonderful Measure which was to have brought benefits but which has brought in many cases grave disadvantage to its beneficiaries, namely, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age (Contributory Pensions) Act, which has in a great many cases forced people to go to the boards of guardians for relief because it has deprived them of their unemployment benefit. The blame for the condition under which large bodies of able-bodied unemployed men are at present living, or striving to live, rests not upon their own shoulders but upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government, which is supported by the two hon. Members who have brought forward their specific this afternoon.
One word about the amazing doctrine, if such it can be called, which lies at the root of the two speeches which we have heard to-day. One hon. Member said that the franchise should be connected with service rendered. If that doctrine were carried through to its logical conclusion who would be left upon the register? Which of us, as Shakespeare says, should escape whipping, if that doctrine were carried to its logical conclusion? We have heard about the sheltered trades and about classes of so-called sheltered workers. What about
the classes of sheltered investors, the sheltered rentiers? What about the people who draw large sums of money every year as interest upon invested money which very often has nothing to do with any savings they have accumulated but is merely inherited from their fathers, or their aunts or their friends, and which represents no effort, no service rendered by those people, either in the present or in the past. Turning to the question of ex-service men again: On what possible grounds can it be maintained that the principle of franchise according to services rendered is going to bar out able-bodied ex-service men, who defended the ratepayers in the City of London and Westminster on whose behalf a large part of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East, was made. He said that storms of passion were aroused in the hearts of certain people in the City of London and Westminster because they had had to pay a few pence more in the £ in higher rates in order to make up the scales of Poor Law relief paid in Deptford and Greenwich, and the other places which he mentioned. This doctrine of franchise according to services rendered is one which it will not pay the Conservative party to press too far. Then as to the kindred doctrine, the doctrine that it is immoral to vote for people if you think that as a result you are going to get some advantage. Let us examine that doctrine. It is very immoral, said the hon. and gallant Member for Islington, for people to promise that "if you vote for me you will get some advantage." He never makes promises of that kind himself.

Mr. TASKER: I never made promises like that during the election.

Mr. DALTON: I have not had the opportunity of indulging in research into the hon. and gallant Member's election address, but I shall be greatly surprised, if I did so, if I did not find some promise or offer to induce the people of Islington, or a section of the people of Islington, to return him to this House.

Mr. TASKER: I will send the hon. Member a copy of my election address.

Mr. DALTON: And I will send the hon. Member a copy of mine in exchange. Is it immoral to vote for anyone if you think
you are going to get any benefit as the result of your vote? What about the promises of a reduction in taxation? Perhaps the hon. Member did not make any promise to reduce taxation to the electors of Islington? He says he made no promises of this kind. He is very fortunate so far as the last two Budgets are concerned, because after the reduction of the Super-tax there was nothing much left to give to anybody else. But many Super-taxpayers are in pocket to the extent of about £1,000 a year as a result of the first Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it contended by the hon. Member that it was very immoral for any Super-tax payer to vote for a Conservative candidate because he believed that the Super-tax would be reduced? I never heard that suggestion made before.
With regard to the safeguarding proceedings: The electors of boards of guardians were described by the hon. Member as human parasites. Is there any reason why we should not apply the same term to those people who come to this House, or to hon. Members of this House, asking that their businesses should be helped by the Government of the day by getting a little relief from uncomfortable foreign competition by means of import duties? Is it going to be held that all the promises made during the Tariff Reform campaign were essentially immoral They were all promises to a section of the community, that if they would vote Conservative they would get higher dividends or higher wages. One might go through practically all the economic questions which come before the country at election time. Landlords vote for Conservative candidates because they hope to get relief from agricultural rates. Some people vote for the Labour party, or the Conservative party, on the question of the beet sugar subsidy because they think they will be better off than they were before; and I could go on and take any single question of an economic character and apply this doctrine in such a way as to show that anybody who is going to get any benefit whatever by the adoption of any economic policy whatever has no right to cast a vote because it would be immoral.
You cannot single out this one particular question of the election of guardians. It is simply a particular
case in a general problem which faces us under a democratic government where economic issues are at stake. The proposal put forward this afternoon is a very mild form of a much stiffer proposition which, if we are to believe the "Times," was seriously considered by the Cabinet a little while ago. There were daily communiques in the "Times" a few weeks ago, statements if you like, of the discussions in the Cabinet.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): indicated dissent.

Mr. DALTON: The right bon. Gentleman will be able to give an account of this when he comes to reply; he will be able to explain how it was that every day for some considerable time there were statements in the political columns of the "Times" saying that the Cabinet had been considering the question of the disfranchisement of people in receipt of Poor Law relief. First we were told that the Cabinet had practically decided to deprive those people in receipt of Poor Law relief both of the municipal vote, and also of the Parliamentary vote. We were told that there was a strong majority in the Cabinet in favour of doing this, and the Minister of Health in a speech in the country said that for himself he was strongly in favour of disfranchising people who received Poor Law relief so far as municipal elections were concerned. The Attorney-General made a statement to the same effect. Evidently there was division in the Cabinet, and the "Times" retailed the position to us daily. We were told that what brought the matter to a deadlock was the administrative difficulty, how it would be worked out in practice; and we now observe that in the Bill which the Home Secretary is to introduce tomorrow there is no provision for disfranchisement at all. But this proposal this afternoon is the thin end of the wedge which the majority of the Cabinet was in favour of.
The real solution for this particular problem, in so far as it is a special problem at all, is not to attempt to take away the vote from large numbers of people who stand in more need of the vote in order to defend themselves and their interests than the rest of the community
If we gave votes according to the needs of the people we should give the poor man 100 votes and the rich man one vote, because the rich man can find many other means of bringing pressure to bear on the Government. The real solution is that which has been advocated for more than 20 years past, a reform of the Poor Law and the abolition of boards of guardians. More than 20 years ago this was proposed by Mrs. Sidney Webb and the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), and it has since been adopted by practically every party in the State. It is now agreed that boards of guardians should go and their duties should be distributed amongst other popularly elected authorities, whether in regard to the sick or the children, or the old people or in regard to the able-bodied. The present Government have given us a pledge. I do not want to press it too hard, for they have given so many semi-pledges that we do not know how many are to be considered binding, and within what period of time.
They have given pledges in regard to Factory Bills and Poor Law Bills, and the Government are committed some time or other, if they remain in office, to deal with this question of Poor Law reform. I am not saying that we expect to be in agreement with all the proposals they may put forward, but we shall all be in agreement with the proposal that boards of guardians have had their day, that they are not suitable bodies or fitted to perform the large number of functions dealing with a large number of different classes of distressed people, and that they should be swept away and their functions distributed amongst other popularly elected bodies. If that were done the special case put forward this afternoon would utterly fall to the ground. It should be quite impossible for the Government which is pledged to Poor Law reform to accept a Motion of this character, which is simply leading us off along another line altogether, and which is highly objectionable in itself. Still I am glad the question has been proposed, and I do not think my hon. Friends on this side of the House will find fault at all with the fact that it has been brought forward. I hope hon. Members who have brought it forward will have the pluck
to go to a division. Let them go into the Lobby, but we shall go into their constituencies and explain to the electors the course they have proposed this afternoon.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I hope I shall be pardoned for trespassing on the time of the House for a few moments on this subject. I have had some 30 years experience as a member of a board of guardians and my experience is rather more favourable to them than the expressions which have been used in regard to the Poor Law system by the hon. Member who has just sat down. It may be that they will be swept away, but I think they have discharged their duties and responsibilities remarkably well. There are two reasons why I am unable to support the Motion now before the House. In the first place, I do not think it really comes within the range of practical politics. It is all very well to theorise, but my experience is that you cannot go back, and once you have given a vote it is impossible to take it away. It may be said that it is a proposal to revert to the old system. That may be so, but that argument might also be adduced in favour of a return to capital punishment for sheep stealing. It is an argument that does not carry much weight. If it was within the range of practical politics, there is still one reason why I should have to oppose it.
Every hon. Member will agree that one of the most essential things at the present moment is to try to bring all sections of the community together in a friendly manner for the welfare of the State, and I cannot imagine anything that would be more disastrous than to propose the disfranchisement of men simply because they have received certain money from boards of guardians. It would create more class hatred than anything else. It would be said that we were taking votes from those who have not and allowing those who have to retain their voting power to the full. Such an impression as this would do more to bring about class hatred than anything I can conceive. It is said that this proposal only refers to the election of boards of guardians. I do not really see how it
would work. As far as voting is concerned, you cannot make fish of one and fowl of another.
Take my own example. I have been for 30 years a member of a board of guardians, and I have had the privilege and honour of sitting in this House for nearly 10 years, and I cannot imagine anything more unfair than to say to a man: "You are much too poor to vote for me as a member of a board of guardians, but you are quite rich enough to vote for me as a Member of the House of Commons." That is not very complimentary to hon. Members of this House. I know that the argument will be used that there is a difference between the functions of a Member of Parliament and the functions of a member of a board of guardians, and that a man has a more direct interest or hope of getting something from a member of a board of guardians than from a Member of Parliament. There I entirely disagree. We must face the facts. How can you take away the vote from a man simply because he does not pay any rates, and say that he is not qualified to vote for the guardian who spends the rates, yet at the same time say to that man: "You can vote for a Member of Parliament, although you do not pay a farthing in taxation"? In other words, the man is told: "You can vote far a, Member of Parliament who supports that taxation and who may legislate in a way that would certainly advance your personal interest just as much as any member of a board of guardians could do. "I cannot think that you could disqualify a man because he does not pay rates and yet allow him to vote for a Member of Parliament although he does not pay any taxes.
I am not quite clear how far the Motion goes. An hon. Member asked whether the proposal would apply to "the old pauper," so-called. I imagine that it would, but I do not know. It seems to me rather ridiculous that you should allow an old-age pensioner to vote for a member of a board of guardians, and at the same time deprive the man who is one or two years younger of the opportunity of voting, simply because he gets half the amount of the pension from the guardians. It is quite illogical and almost impossible to work. But there are other reasons which this House would be wise to weigh. I have no doubt that the action of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion has been very much
prompted by the conduct of a certain number of boards of guardians in this country. I am not going to attempt to criticise what those boards have done or not done. This is not the occasion to do so. Assuming that there are some boards of guardians which are unduly extravagant, I am the very first to admit that an unduly lavish expenditure on the part of boards of guardians might lead not only to an increase of pauperism but would be had for the State. At the same time it must be remembered that there are boards of guardians who err on the other side. My experience as a member of a board of guardians is that sometimes what seems extravagant on the face of it is not always extravagant in the result.
Boards of guardians have very many difficult duties to discharge. They have to weigh the interests of the ratepayers and the interests of those who seek assistance. In some cases where boards of guardians go on the strong principle generally known as "offering the house," in other words when people who come for relief are invariably told, "We can give you no out-relief, but you can go into the house," it often means that some of the most hard-working and deserving men who have fallen on evil days would rather starve than go into the house. What is the result? It is bad for them and it is bad for their wives, for they live in semi-starvation, but it is far worse for the 'children. As an old bachelor I cannot speak with very much experience of children, but I can speak with a little experience of horses, and I know one thing. If you starve a foal it is about the worst piece of economy imaginable. You will never get a good horse. What applies to foals applies also to children. If you starve these poor unfortunate youngsters you cannot expect them to grow up and to pull their full strength in the service of the nation. All these points have to be very carefully considered by boards of guardians. My experience has taught me that members of the community, of all classes, whether rich or poor, should have a say in the appointment of guardians.
There are some boards of guardians which tend to be extravagant, and there are others which err on the other side. but on the whole I think that we get a fair representation. I for one would be
strongly opposed to a proposal that would deprive a man, merely because he has to receive Poor Law relief, of a say in the election of guardians. We have heard a great deal to-day about the ne'er-do-well, and the able-bodied loafer. Unfortunately there are a good many of them about. My experience as a guardian has been this: There are a great number of men who have to come to the guardians, not because of their own fault, but very often through bad training or some difficulty of that sort. Apart from that, the men who have to come for relief are very often men with large families. Young married men very often carry on without help in one way or another, but when a man has a wife and three, four or five children, and he is out of work for two or three months, he is forced to seek relief. To describe such people as necessarily ne'er-do-well is taking a rather harsh view of the situation. At any rate I think that the argument that they ought to be deprived of the vote for the guardians on account of their being ne'er-do-wells, is rather a strange argument when, as I understand, they are still to retain their votes for the election of Members of Parliament.
We all know that poverty is a great misfortune. It is not always a crime. Therefore we should hesitate more than once before we attempt to urge the Government to bring in any Measure that, after all, would amount to this: A man may be a decent citizen and a really hard-working man, but because he falls out of employment, or because his domestic responsibilities are very heavy and he cannot weather the storm, and then has to go to the board of guardians to ask for a few shillings a week, it seems a very hard thing indeed to deprive him of one of the cherished rights of citizenship. I am one of those fortunate people who, when they go to bed, know that if they wake up in the morning they will have enough on which to live. I do not say that that is any merit. I may be called one of the idle rich, but I am not very rich. None the less, I am thankful to think that I am in that comfortable position. If any evil day did come upon me, and I had to go to the guardians to receive a little assistance from public funds, I hope that none of my friends, when I was down, would take away my
vote. I have trespassed for some time on the kindness of the House, and I am thankful for the patient hearing that has been given me. I have spoken because I can claim to have had some experience of the administration of Poor Law relief.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a word or two on this Motion, because last year I framed a Motion on rather broader terms, but unfortunately, owing to the operation of the guillotine, it could not be discussed. This subject is one that has been talked about a great deal, particularly during the past year. It is a very good thing that the private Members' days should be occupied with the discussion of subjects which are of general interest, even though the Mover or Seconder may make himself liable to abuse from those who disagree with him. This is not entirely a party issue, for I know that my own view is not shared by many Members of my own party with whom I am generally in complete agreement. I hope the question will be discussed as far as possible without prejudice, because it is one of those questions in which the most violent things can always be said on either side. On the one side it is said that there is wholesale bribery and corruption on the part of guardians, and on the other side that those who support a Motion like this want to take away the franchise for their own ends. I am certain that neither of those statements is in the least true. There is very much more in the question than mere party statements of that description.
The fact that this particular disqualification was in being up to 1918, shows that it was considered till then that such a disqualification should operate. The question should be very carefully considered now, after we have had an opportunity of seeing it working for something like 10 years; we should decide whether the removal of the disqualification has been a success or not. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) said he did not think that any of us had mentioned the subject at the General Election. I can assure him that I and other Members on this side were in favour of such a Motion, and that we make no secret in our constituencies of the fact that we are in favour of the disqualification. In fact,
in my own constituency, as far as I know, the general idea is approved, and the line that I am now taking is generally approved by all the people there, rich and poor. I do not think it is fair to say, as the hon. Member did, that this Motion is moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for, honestly, I do not know what line the Government are going to take and what the Home Secretary will say later. The hon. Member for Peckham also made some remarks about the Super-tax. It is not fair to suggest, as is frequently done by members of the Labour party, that the Government reduced the Super-tax for the rich man, and did not do anything for the poor. Hon. Members who say that do not mention the fact that the Super-tax was reduced at the same time as the Death Duties were increased, and the two things balance each other. That is an absolute fact, and to disguise it is to try to get away with one of those half-truths that are so very helpful at election times, but not of much assistance in this House.
I hope that the Motion will be carried and that the disqualification of the man in receipt of poor relief will be restored. I do not intend to go at length into all the cases that have been brought up, of what is called corruption in local government. We have had enough Debates on that subject, particularly in connection with the prayers which have so often been moved in relation to the Guardians Default Bill. It is generally agreed on all sides of the House that where the existence of such scandals is proved, the sooner they become impossible the better. The only thing we have to decide is, what is the best way to do it? My own opinion of the principle involved in this Motion is that it is morally wrong for anybody who receives money from the guardians to vote at an election in which the amount of that money is an issue. That is rather different from the broad lines taken by the hon. Member for Peckham. The whole issue is whether a man who actually receives money shall be allowed to vote for the guardians who is to have the power of saying whether the sum of money is to be more or less than it would be if some other person were elected. On a recent Friday we had an interesting discussion on the totalisator, and I was interested
to hear hon. Members opposite cheer the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) when he said that he considered it morally wrong that the Jockey Club should have the running of the totalisator, out of which they were to receive certain pecuniary profit. I believe the same principle is involved in this Motion.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Starvation is involved.

Captain HUDSON: No, it is not, When hon. Members cheered the remark I have just mentioned, why should they not support this Motion? The argument always brought forward by opponents of a Motion of this kind is that we, when we are fighting elections on questions of Protection or Safeguarding, promise certain things to the people if they return us, but I cannot see that that is in the slightest degree a simile. What about those who ask the electors to vote for Free Trade because it would mean a free breakfast-table? If promises of Protection are corrupt, surely the promise that Free Trade would give a free breakfast-table is just as corrupt.

Mr. DALTON: I did not suggest that these things were corrupt. What I said was that, since these things were frequent and seemed to be inevitable in the course of General Elections, in which economic questions came under review, I did not see how any special line could be drawn in regard to the subject of the Motion.

Captain HUDSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation but where I see the difference is this. In the case of the Protection Election, we said we thought Protection would bring more work to people. We did not say it would bring more doles—to use the common expression. If, on the other hand, we had said that by means of Protection, we would get a great sum of money and that we would divide it among the electors, giving each so much cash, then that would have been similar to the case of these people voting for the guardians. It is the actual giving of a sum of money by the guardians who, when elected, have it in their power to say how much or how little is to he given to people who have voted at the election. It is for that reason that boards of guardians are the only bodies to which
such regulation as is suggested here would apply. On the question which has been raised of ex-service men, I think that, free from all rancour, Members of all parties are for the most part, keen on doing what they can for the ex-service men. I have many friends among the ex-service men in my constituency as no doubt the hon. Member for Peckham has in his constituency but I do not think it. quite fair that when any administrative or legislative question of this kind arises, affecting a body of people, hon. Members opposite should say to us, "You are doing this to the ex-service men who fought for you during the War."
What about the ex-service man whose rates have been put up owing to this extravagant relief. That ex-service man might well say to us, "Why do you allow my savings to be taken from me in rates, to be paid to these people many of whom never fought in the War at all." He has just as much right to be considered as the ex-service man who would, according to hon. Members opposite, come into this category and would be deprived of his vote. The ex-service man in that case would only be deprived of the right of voting for the man who was giving him the money which he was drawing in Poor Law relief. I think it is time that the argument about the ex-service men ceased. It cuts both ways. Again it is said that we are proposing to take away votes from people because they are poor. We only want to take away votes from people who have to apply for relief. It is not because of their poverty, but because of the relief which they are drawing—we are only seeking to prevent them voting for the people who actually give them the relief. I am in favour of the Motion, as I think the majority of London Members are in favour of it. If it were passed, we should get rid of a lot of anomalies which now exist. There would be no need for Default Bills or Emergency Provision Bills and I believe local government, would be put on a sounder basis. I hope, therefore, the House will support the Motion on the grounds which I have just stated.

Mr. SCURR: The House was very much moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman). He dealt with this question, not from any party point of view, but from the
more important point of view of humanity. Therefore, we understand why it is that the organisation of the Tory party is being directed against the hon. Member, so as to prevent him being returned once more as a Member of this House, at the next General Election. It has been refreshing to have had a discussion on this Motion which has shown us the real Tory mind. The Mover and Seconder have taken their courage in their hands and have expressed the mind of the Conservative party here, as they would not have the courage to do to the electors as a whole. The question which we are discussing, according to the Motion on the Paper, is the misuse of pauper votes at guardians' elections. I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey), the hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. Tasker) and the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. and I have failed to discover that they have given one instance of the misuse of pauper votes.
The hon. Member for Kennington expressed himself in favour of a certain part of the Report of a Royal Commission of 1909. That recommendation according to the hon. Member's own words, was directed against persons who had failed to manage their own affairs successfully. That is a very fine phrase when we remember that the majority Report of 1909 was signed by, among others, the late Lord George Hamilton. We can appreciate that he was one of those persons who had not failed to manage his own affairs successfully when we remember the considerable sums which he drew from the State, as a pensioner of the State, though he was not only entitled to vote on every possible occasion, but was also entitled to be a Member of this House. We can understand how he would direct his wrath against those persons who had not done as he had done, but who had failed to manage their own affairs successfully. If there were any arguments for this Motion at all, if there had been any change in the administration of the boards of guardians due to the enfranchisement of persons who were in receipt of relief, then it would be reflected in the elections which have taken place. If there had been, in district after district, a lavish distribution of relief as a result
of this, if people had been able to get something by taking the trouble to record their votes for particular candidates, once in three years, the result would be reflected in much higher polls in the elections.
I have taken the trouble to look up the returns in London and I have made a comparison between 1913 and 1925. In 1913 there was a disqualification of all persons who had out-door relief and I give the following figures which include some of the boards criticised here this afternoon. In the case of Bermondsey, in 1913, when there was a disqualification, 40.1 per cent. of the electorate voted, but in 1925, when we had a considerable extension of the franchise, only 29.7 per cent. voted. It does not seem as though the newly enfranchised people, who were getting this lavish relief, were rushing to record their votes. Taking the same dates, we find in Camberwell a slight increase—21.5 per cent. to 23.3 per cent. In Chelsea the figures are 24.2 per cent. in 1913 and 20.7 per cent. in 1925; Holborn 26.1 per cent. in 1913 and 21.7; per cent. in 1925; Poplar 43.3 per cent. in 1913 and 35.5 per cent. in 1925. For the whole of London in 1913, 21.3 per cent. of the electorate voted and in 1925, 19.8 per cent. voted. These figures show that, in any circumstances, there is no case to be made out for any alarm as regards the effect of enfranchising persons in receipt of out-door relief.
Some criticism was offered by the hon. Member for Kennington in regard to the action of the South Poplar Labour party in having as one of their candidates and now as one of their representatives on the London County Council, a gentleman who is also a relieving officer. I may say a word in regard to Mr. G. W. Mills, the gentleman in question. Before the South Poplar Labour party selected him as candidate, they made careful inquiries and found that gentlemen occupying exactly the same position—namely, relieving officers to boards of guardians—who were members of the Conservative party were sitting on public authorities. Following the principle that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, they supported Mr. Mills, who was returned. But the fact that Mr. Mills is a member of the London County Council has no relation to this question
at all, because the London County Council is not an authority which deals with public assistance. If the proposed reform of the Poor Law comes into effect and the administration of these matters is transferred to the London County Council, and if Mr. Mills is still a member of that body and still in his present employment, he will, of course, be faced with the alternative of giving up his business or going off the county council. But that is one of those arguments which are put forward not really with any bearing on the Motion before the House, but rather to raise a sort of fog of prejudice to obscure the real issue.
As a matter of fact, what is at the bottom of this Motion is a fundamental difference which lies between the party opposite and the party on this side. The party opposite regard the franchise as a privilege; they regard it as being based on property. They regard property as he permanent thing in life and human beings as being only incidental to property. So far as we are concerned, we regard the franchise as a right, and property, to us, is the incidental thing in life. The thing that really matters is the human being, and we claim and put forward and hold with all the intensity of which we are capable that the mere fact of being born into the world gives every child the right to all that God and nature have sent into the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without responsibility?"] The child has no responsibility for being born and is not asked to come into the world, and the fact that it does come into the world entitles it to what is in the world for it to have. That is fundamental so far as we are concerned, and we say that every person has a right to be a citizen and, having that right, is able to exercise the responsibility which seems to concern the hon. Member opposite so much. The hon. Member for Kennington is trying to disfranchise certain people, but he should study the history of the party to which he himself belongs, because, if his party had been able to have their way some hundred years ago, the hon. Member for Kennington would not have been able to sit in this House or to have the power to vote for a Member to sit in it. The party opposite has always stood for privilege, but we stand for the people as a whole.
This Motion has only been brought forward to try and befog the issue. The hon. Member for Kennington himself said very correctly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) has pointed out, that we are now out of the shadow of the War. After all, the great majority of these men who are on out-relief at present went cheerfully to the War and went fighting throughout that War, and at that time there was nothing too good for them. Ladies and other members of their class were always willing to treat them, to give them cigarettes, to pat them on the back, and to say what fine fellows they were; but to-day they are described in the terms used by the hon. Member for East Islington, as idle, thriftless. Their work is over, and they are no mere wanted now to do the fighting. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] I am talking of what these men who are now on out-relief did in the War. Their service was very acceptable then, but now that it is no longer wanted, hon. Members opposite are determined to prevent them having any kind of citizenship, and are quite prepared to see them starve. If the terms of this Motion were implemented. it would mean that these ex-service men would be disfranchised in every sense of the word, because this is a Motion which is all the time against the poorest section of the community. it represents the Tory mind, which is opposed to every humane feeling, and I hope it will be rejected with contumely by this House.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is very disagreeable indeed to me to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Tasker), and in agreement with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), but it is some little consolation that, if I find myself in agreement with that hon. Member, it is for none of the reasons which he adduced, for a more pitiful piece of casuistry than that by which he attempted to show that the object of this Motion was to deprive the ex-service man of his vote, I never heard in my life. Nothing in this House is more nauseating than when hon. Members of the Labour party attempt to drag in the ex-service man, as they do on any and
every occasion, when they think they can make a debating point out of him. As I say, I find myself in disagreement with the two hon. Members who have introduced this Motion. There is, obviously, a very great deal to be said for disfranchising any man who is in receipt of relief, but if you are going to start on disfranchising them, I think it is extremely hard to say where you are going to stop. Our present system of government does not really rest upon the fitness of the individual to vote. I think most hon. Members in this House, towards the end of an exhausting election, would come to the conclusion that very few people indeed in the country were fit to have a vote—[An Hon. MEMBER: "Or to be a candidate!"]—or to be a candidate. The hon Member for Peckham suggested that the rich man should be disfranchised.

Mr. DALTON: I did not suggest that anybody should be disfranchised. What I said was that if this Motion were carried into effect, logically you would also have to disfranchise, large numbers of other people as well.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member suggested that the rich man should have one vote and the poor man 100 votes, which is, after all, much the same thing as disfranchising him, and obviously you could go on to numerous other categories. There is a strong case for disfranchising municipal employés, government employés, and anyone who does not pay rates or is not a ten-pound householder, but we have definitely and long ago abandoned that system, and we have embarked, for better or for worse, on the system of adult suffrage, of giving every individual in the country a vote. It seems to me that to attempt to go back on that system is merely going to be more dangerous rather than safer. That experiment of adult suffrage is undoubtedly a great and dangerous experiment. It has been tried before, but it has never succeeded before in the history of the world, and no one can say whether that experiment is ultimately going to succeed, but if you are going to confuse the issue by attempting to create artificial safeguards, you run the additional risk of persuading those electors who know what the issues are that they need not bother to vote. That has been the trouble in the past. Again
and again you have had very bad boards of guardians returned on a poll of far less than 50 per cent. of the total number of electors entitled to vote. That is the real danger, and if, by the method suggested in this Motion, you allow people to have a false sense of security, you will do a definite disservice to the cause of efficient local government and to the cause of economy in local government, which is so very necessary.
That, after all, seems to be the real issue. We have embarked on this great experiment of adult suffrage, and if that experiment is to succeed, the electors of this country should remember the great truth—their votes at the last General election showed that they know the truth to-day—that low rates, low taxation, and a thriving industry are vastly more important to the working people of this country than all the nostrums advanced by hon. Members on the Labour Benches and than the most abundant flow of municipal wet nursing. A thriving industry cannot exist for long without low rates and low taxation, and the working people of this country, of whom hon. Members above the Gangway are always pretending to be the exclusive friends, know it to-day, except in some exceptional areas, and there they are learning their lesson. Unless the electors remember that, if they once begin on any large scale to be tempted to vote for Socialism, this great experiment which has been embarked upon will fail. The encouraging thing is that they are learning it. Again and again we have seen districts which have learned it. West Ham and Poplar are learning it to-day, and so is Sheffield, and the people generally are learning that lesson. The policy, for that is the policy, roughly speaking, of the Socialist, of robbing the rich to subsidise the poor, will in the end bring poverty and distress to the poor themselves, and unless the electors remember that, the experiment of adult suffrage as applied to local government will fail. I believe they will remember it except in minor instances, and I believe that this Motion, if carried, would tend to obscure the issue and for that reason would be dangerous to the local government of the country.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: It is true that this Motion is couched in very cautious
terms, and asks for a very limited disqualification, but I am not alone in thinking that it represents, nevertheless, a type of mind which, if it had its way, would wish to carry this matter to its logical conclusion. It is clear that it is only part of a very much larger question which affects the whole fundamental character of the British people and the British Constitution. The British people are in many ways a curious people. There is one thing about them, and that is that they have an intense appreciation of the fact that they have a part to play in the life of the country. They appreciate the fact that they enjoy the status which we call citizenship. One of the symbols of citizenship is the right of exercising a vote, and if you take away from them that symbol, you are doing something which will do incalculable harm to that spirit of pride in our country to which I have referred.
It seems to me that, apart from other questions, this Motion is peculiarly untimely at the present time. Owing to the stress of modern conditions, the number of people who are in receipt of Poor Law relief is larger than it is in normal times; and it comprises undoubtedly a very large number of people who are in that position through no fault of their own. They are there because they cannot get work, and because they cannot get work they cannot earn money, and for that reason they have nowhere else to turn. It seems to me that when you get so many people of that type in this position at the present time, it is really adding a great hardship to them to say, "In addition to the misfortune which you already have, we are going to impose on you the further misfortune, and even the disgrace, of depriving you of the right of expressing your views in the ballot box." As a matter of fact, the importance of the question has, I think, been exaggerated. I believe the number of people in receipt of poor relief is about 1,000,000, and of that number 75 per cent. are women and young persons, so that the number of people who would be affected, even if you put this Motion into operation, would be so comparatively small that the number of elections which they would be likely to turn one way or the other would be practically negligible.
But there is another and a larger aspect of the question, to which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) has already referred. It is that, if there is a problem, which I do not admit, it is not to be solved by any pettifogging Motion of this character, but it is to be solved by the Government, as a Government, doing what they have said they will do, namely, tackling the whole question of Poor Law reform. Apart from that, there is another question of a wider nature. We hear a great deal about corruption. I think it is greatly exaggerated, but if people, and if boards of guardians and other bodies, resort to devices of a corrupt character, they will bring punishment on their own heads. I have sufficient faith in the common honesty of the British people to believe that no corruption on a great scale is taking place, or can take place, under our constitution. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will reject this Motion.

Mr. LUMLEY: There are only two or three remarks that I wish to make on this subject. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not listen favourably to the proposal which is made in this Motion.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1928.
2. Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928.
3. Patents and Designs (Convention) Act, 1928.
4. Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Act, 1928.
5. British Guiana Āct, 1928.
6. Rating (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1928.
7. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1928.

Orders of the Day — PAUPER VOTES AT GUARDIANS' ELECTIONS.

Question again proposed,
That this House asks the Government to give consideration to the question of taking steps to restore some measure of disqualification of recipients of poor relief for voting at elections of boards of guardians."—(Mr. G. Harvey.)

Mr. LUMLEY: I was saying that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not lend a favourable ear to the proposal contained in this Motion. Many of the reasons which appeal to me have already been admirably stated by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), and by the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), who addressed the House a few moments ago. I believe that it would be difficult to work this proposal. Let me remind the House of what occurred on the last occasion when it was discussed in this House. The Representation of the People Bill left this House in 1917 containing no provision for disqualification of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief, but it was Returned to this House by another place with amendments, one of which introduced this very suggestion. That Amendment was rejected by the then Home Secretary, on the ground that it would be too difficult to work. He pointed out that you would have a register encumbered with a new lot of hieroglyphics to distinguish those who had been disqualified, and that it would entail a great amount of work on the part of those who had to administer it. Therefore, the proposal would create considerable administrative difficulties.
I am willing to admit that it might be well to incur some additional expense and inconvenience if it were really desirable that this change should be made. I think, however, that it is highly undesirable for two or three reasons. First, it would be unfair to a number of people. Some hon. Members, speaking in favour of the Motion, seemed to suggest by the phrases that they used, that all the persons who receive Poor Law relief are wasteful, and should no longer be considered as worthy of the rights of citizenship. It is true that
there are a number of people in many districts of that description, but it is equally true that many of those who draw Poor Law relief are persons who in every way should he entitled to the full privileges of citizenship. In some eases, as has already been pointed out, it is not their own fault. Perhaps the trade to which they belong, especially if it be one of the heavy industries, has been under a cloud for so long that they have exhausted their savings and have had to seek public assistance, often very much against their will, in order to exist at all. Those people are in a very unfortunate position. Many of them still cling very strongly to the idea that they are citizens of a great country, and hope at some time in the future to continue decent work, and to take away from them some of the duties as well as the rights of full citizenship would he to drive them, or help to drive them, into the ranks of that other class of persons whom we describe as wastrels.
Further, I think this is a wrong way, in fact, a futile way, of grappling with this particular difficulty. What is the difficulty? The difficulty with which hon. Members who support this Motion are concerned is that in some areas guardians are paying out money to undeserving people, and paying out too much money. They seem to be starting at the wrong end. Who is it who is to blame if this abuse goes on? Who are the real culprits? Surely not the people who vote, but the guardians themselves. For a long time we have reckoned it a virtue in our public life, both in local government as well as in Parliamentary government, that people can always be found who are ready to stand for election, and when elected, are prepared to use their judgment intelligently on the problems which face them when they come into office; in many cases probably, in fact, I venture to say in all cases, very different problems from what they expected when they were elected. If there was any evidence that that virtue was breaking down on a wholesale scale, we should have to consider the whole system of democratic government. If that were the case it would not be a question of tinkering with a few electors of the boards of guardians, but with the whole system of government. I suggest there is no evidence to show that this
virtue is lacking in the country to-day, save, possibly, in a very few exceptional cases, and for those exceptional cases we have a weapon which is being used, I am -glad to say, by the Minister of Health. He is tackling not the voters, who are not the people to blame, but the guardians who are abusing the position to which they have been elected. If hon. Members wish to reform this abuse, where it exists, instead of tackling the unfortunate voters they ought to tackle the guardians.
Finally, I object very much to the principle which this Motion, as I see it, asks us to introduce, and that is taking away-the votes of people because we do not like the way in which they vote. If we are once going to start on that, sort of thing it will be a very dangerous precedent to hon. Members opposite, and I can see no reason for doing it. It would be a retrograde step. In a system of democratic government we have to take the bad with the good, and until that system breaks down we have to try to work it. I hope my right hon. Friend will not listen to those who proposed this Motion.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I am very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Members who have just spoken, because it shows that there are a few sensible men still left in the stupid party. If the Government were to put on the Whips in support of this Motion it would, from our point of view, be a very good political move on their part. I was struck by the Mover of the Motion excusing himself for making so short a speech by saying that public speaking was not his job. If it is not his job he has no business in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Public speaking is a necessary qualification in this House.

Major PRICE: What the hon. Member said was that he did not make his living by public speaking.

Mr. JONES: The burden of all the speeches in support of this Motion is that the local rates have gone up by leaps and bounds because, it is alleged, of the enormous increase in local expenditure due to the relief given to the poor, constituting one of the chief burdens on industry to-day, with the implication that this increase has been due to extravagance on the part of boards
of guardians. The hon. Member who moved the Motion did not define what he meant by an able-bodied pauper, but he did imply that people who voted in elections for boards of guardians did so deliberately for the sake of getting relief if they should be in need of it, or profess to be in need of it. Elections for the guardians are taking place all over the country, and there has hardly been a local contest where this kind of stuff is not trotted out by the anti-Labour candidates and their supporters. But I would point out that the young men who vote for Parliament do not vote in the elections for the guardians, as they have not got the vote. 25 per cent. of the Parliamentary electors do not take part in local elections at all as voters, and therefore they cannot be made the subject of the hon. Member's charges. When it is also remembered that unmarried men and even widowers do not get any relief at all from boards of guardians it will be seen at once that if there is any case against the boards of guardians it is because of the relief which is given to married people and their dependent children.
If it be right to disfranchise the voters for boards of guardians' elections, it is equally right to disfranchise the voters for Parliament. The present Government have passed some Measures which are as much bribery, if it be bribery, as anything done by way of giving relief. Old age pensions are an illustration. If we are going to disfranchise people who receive poor relief we ought to disfranchise the whole of the teaching profession, who are now paid ender the Burnham scale by a provision ratified by this House, which is Parliamentary bribery, to put it in that way. You cannot limit the operation of this Motion to boards of guardians' elections, because many of the education authorities in necessitous areas have to give relief in either money or in kind. What is the feeding of school-children but another form of relief? Then there are the work of the child and maternity welfare centres, the provision of milk for infants who are in need of it, the provision of free books and free fares for children attending secondary and other schools, and the provision of free
scholarships in schools and universities. All those things can be said to come in the same category, in principle, as poor relief itself. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) has pointed out that out of a million or so paupers the vast majority are women and children and not able-bodied men.
The only satisfactory way of relieving the burden of high rates on industry depends upon the realisation of the fact that the bulk of this extra burden, due to poor relief and to the feeding of school children, and so on, is attributable to national causes and ought to be placed upon national taxation. If the Government shifted these national burdens on to national taxation the rates would probably go down by one half. I want to illustrate this point by the case of South Wales. At present there are something like 50,000 miners out of work in South Wales, owing to depression in the coal trade. Only the other day the Minister of Health, speaking on behalf of the Government, and with the expert knowledge which he has at command, admitted that neither he nor his Government saw any possibility of 200,000 coal miners finding work again in the coal industry. What is going to happen to those miners? They do not want to accept poor relief. They are able-bodied men, anxious to work and willing to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; but under this Motion these 200,000 miners would be disfranchised, because as soon as they have exhausted their unemployment benefit pay they have no other resource but poor relief for themselves and their dependents. No class in this country hates poor relief as do the miners. There is not a miner who would resort to it if he could possibly avoid it, and many thousands of miners and other workers in the necessitous areas have only accepted poor relief as a last resource. They have spent' all their little savings, they have even sold many pieces of their household furniture before accepting poor relief.
I would like to give the House one example of many thousands which could be given of the normal condition of the poor, independent of the out-of-works, with regard to this present distress in the coalfields. I call to mind a widow. She became a widow three years ago. Her husband had been a miner, and as he died following an illness she received no
compensation money. She had no income to fall back upon, and was compelled to resort to Poor Law relief for herself and her three young girls. The whole of her time as a mother is taken up in looking after the health and comfort of those three girls. All three are exceedingly clever girls. She has made sacrifices for them, and all three of them are in a county secondary school, and one of them is the top girl in her school. This family could not possibly live without poor relief. This woman is an able-bodied person, but all her activities are necessarily absorbed by her house, and these three girls are rapidly becoming three valuable citizens. What is true of this case is true of countless thousands in the working class homes of our country, and yet the hon. and gallant Member who seconded this Motion would deprive all these people of this. He could not have thought of the consequences of the Motion if it were to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament.
Not one of the people who have talked so much about the respectability of the poor and keeping off the poor rates have suggested another obvious way of relieving high rates. In addition to the national policy that is required to shift the burden of national services which falls upon the local rates, there in the question of the enormous wealth amassed in this country year by year by the landlord class. Ground rents and mining royalties have never contributed a penny piece in England and Wales towards the poor rate. Here is a source of revenue which is untapped which no speaker in this Debate has suggested for the relief of high rates. They have not made this suggestion because they represent a class that lives and battens in this way upon the labour of the poor of the country who create that great wealth by the growth of population and by their industry. Not long ago the Coalowners' Association and the South Wales Miners' Federation jointly met the Government and placed before them the position of South Wales. They suggested that this heavy burden of the mining royalties should be transferred in the form of a contribution towards the relief of local rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is wandering rather far away from the subject before the House.

Mr. JONES: Other speakers have wandered quite as far as I have done,
and I think my illustration is useful. If my suggestion were adopted, this question of high rates would gradually disappear. Reference has been made to the high rates in some districts, but we are not concerned whether the rates are high or low. What we are concerned about is the use that is made of the rates, and the social services which are rendered. In the local authority areas where Labour is in a majority, they are making good use of the rates for the public welfare. It is not so much a question of how much in the pound the rate is, as the services you get out of the expenditure. Efficiency is more important than false economy. The money which has been spent during the last few years in Poor Law relief assisting school children has been a sound insurance policy to stave off revolution in this country, and if something of that sort had not been done, the Government could not have carried on as smoothly as it has done during the last few years. Any party which interferes with the civic right of any man or woman to vote either at local or Parliamentary elections would be laying the foundations of their own downfall.

Mr. BLUNDELL: For the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). At the same time, I am anxious to dissociate myself from the manner in which he applied his argument. The hon. Member for Peckham, who does not now employ his military title, is known to be gallant in fact, although he may not be so referred to in this House. For this reason I am the more surprised that he should have indulged in a somewhat cynical attempt to exploit his former comrades. In the main I agree with the arguments which the hon. Member put forward. I agree that there is no better qualification for citizenship than that of fighting your country's battles. I do not think any ex-service man should be disentitled to vote or should be deprived of the full rights of citizenship because he is poor.
In this connection I would like to deal with the position of the conscientious objector. I believe that most conscientious objectors have now outlived their period of disfranchisement, but will anybody claim that while a conscientious objector is entitled to a vote any man who carried a musket is not to
be allowed to exercise that right because he happens to be poor?
Unemployment in this country may be classified under three different sections. First of all, there are those who are normally covered by unemployment insurance, and who are usually able to get work before their period of benefit has expired. In the second category there are those who, while perhaps normally covered by insurance, at times are forced to have resort to Poor Law relief. The third category consists of those who are either out of insurance more or less permanently or are not covered by unemployment insurance schemes, and in any distress they must have recourse to the rates. Until we can remedy that situation, I do not see how any proposal like the one with which we are dealing is possible.
The people in the second category who occasionally have recourse to the rates, are distributed amongst the different industries of the country. A man in a distressed area, when he has exhausted his unemployment benefit, may find that he has no chance of obtaining work in his own industry, or any other industry in his district; whereas men in other parts of the country where there are alternative forms of employment may, without difficulty, and within a short time, pass from one trade to another. Until we are able to segregate the people who may fairly be called parasites, or, to put it more politely, are not likely to be able to obtain work again, I do not think it would be right to deprive a whole category of any part of their citizenship. In the case of those who are unable to carry on and are obliged to apply for public assistance, there should be no disfranchisement. There is no doubt in the minds of any hon. Member of this House that there has been a shameful exploitation of the pauper vote in certain districts, mainly in London. I know there has been some exploitation of this kind in other parts of the country, and that exploitation is a lasting disgrace to members of the party opposite, I also believe that a very large number of the members of the Labour party are as heartily ashamed of this exploitation as a blot on our civilisation as we are on this side of the House, only they have not the courage to say so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Hull (Mr. Lumley) that the Minister of Health has found a proper remedy for this state of things. I doubt very much whether the corruption is so far-reaching as has been stated in this House. I am rather afraid that we are in danger of making poverty a crime. Some people want to disfranchise the poor, others want to sterilise them, and no doubt we shall eventually have a proposal to put them into a lethal chamber. I hope that time is some considerable distance off. Meanwhile, I shall oppose the Motion to begin by disfranchising them.

Mr. ATKINSON: What has taken place in this Debate shows how innocuous is this Motion dealing with poor relief as a disqualification. The Motion merely sets forth that this is a subject which requires consideration, and it asks the Government to take steps to
restore some measure of disqualification of recipients of poor relief for voting at elections of votes of guardians.
Unless you are going to say that there never can be a point reached when receipt of Poor Law relief shall be a disqualification, you are hound to vote for this Motion. The question whether you are an ex-service man and the like would not enter into it, and unless you are going to say that at no point of time continuous receipt of Poor Law relief ought to amount to a disqualification, it seems to me that you are bound to vote for this Motion. It must not be forgotten that the right to vote combines with it a qualification for election as a member of the board of guardians. Therefore, you have the curious position of a person in receipt of relief being qualified to be elected as a member of the board of guardians administering that relief. It seems to me that in those circumstances it must be right to say that such a person should be disqualified from voting and from being a member of the board of guardians.
I have been very much struck with the contrast drawn between the position of those poor people and the case of the biggest ratepayer. We know that the biggest ratepayers in many districts are the limited companies, and they have no votes. They have no vote by virtue of carrying on their business in a particular place. To say that those in
receipt of Poor Law relief should continue to have a vote while the big ratepayers in a limited company should not have the same right, seems to me to be continuing an anomaly which ought to be removed. Not only have these big ratepayers no vote, but it should not be overlooked that the men engaged in those businesses are probably the ablest men in the district, and they are disqualified from serving as members of the council or on the board of guardians in their own district. As long as you have the extraordinary position of the officials of a limited company not being allowed to vote, and not possessing the qualification to be members of the boards of guardians, I cannot help thinking that there must be some point at which a man in receipt of Poor Law relief ought to be disqualified from voting, and should be disqualified from being a member of a board of guardians. I think the receipt of Poor Law relief should deprive a man of the right to exercise the franchise, and there must be a point at which that should take place. All that this Motion is asking for is that the point at which it would be fair to deprive a man of his vote should be considered.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: It is not often that I disagree with nay hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). His great debating qualities and sound political views are known to us all, but I am perfectly amazed that he should advance the argument that because there is one black there should be two blacks. I am more amazed to learn that although the hon. and learned Member has full knowledge of the fact that there are alterations proposed in the law to remedy what is an admitted defect in regard to the company law in respect of the voting capacity of some official or officials of a company, he puts that to us as a reason why some of the poorest, and most thrifty and prudent people who are disfranchised at the present moment should continue to be disfranchised. Let me quote one or two examples from my own constituency on the North-East coast. I have in mind one widowed lady whose three sons were killed in the War, and, owing to the intricacies and difficulties and the, sometimes, unfortunate character of the regulations, which are not made for hard cases—although I want to pay my tribute
to the thoughtful and sympathetic attention of the Minister of Pensions in every Government in regard to these cases—this poor woman, who lived a frugal life, was compelled in the end to apply to the guardians for relief. There was no finer citizen to be found in the Hartle-pools, and yet, because of our present system, this poor woman, whose three sons gave their lives for their country in the War, and who has done her utmost to keep herself respectable, but at the end was compelled to go to the guardians, must be deprived of the possibility of participating in the franchise for the return of someone to represent her.
Another case of an ex-service man occurs to me. He gave up a 20 years position to fight, and yet was shamefully done out of his work after his return by another person. Yet this great City of London contains so many people who are too idle to accept the responsibilities of citizenship that in some cases only 11 per cent. of them utilise what is a precious right of the citizens of our country, namely, the franchise.
It is a broad position, and, while there are many features which, I agree, require reconsideration, if this Motion goes to a. Division I shall certainly vote against it. I think it is inequitable. I do not think it should be applied, and, to my mind at any rate, it is a bite only at a larger problem. If one might make a suggestion, I would rather be prepared to support a Resolution proposing that, where any able-bodied man or woman who was fit and able to do so had not utilised the franchise for three years, it should be taken from them and given to some of these poor folk who have proved that they are good citizens, and yet, by reason of their financial position, are not able to exercise the full responsibilities of citizenship in regard to voting. At any rate, I must say to my hon. Friend that, if he carries his proposal to a Division, I shall vote against him.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has not been in the House for the last hour, although I see that he has now returned. Had he been here, he would have realised that the Aunt Sally of Conservative ideas that he laboriously set up is an utter and complete myth. The arguments of hon. Members who. have spoken in favour of this Motion
illustrate the extreme danger of arguing from the particular to the general. Their argument is that, because in a few isolated cases up and down the country there may be abuses, therefore very large numbers of persons should be disfranchised who by no stretch of the imagination could he accused of having misused their rights of voting. In my own constituency, as hon. Members may possibly have seen from a Report of the Ministry of Labour published in the "Times" last week, we have, in some areas, 26 per cent. of the working population unemployed. It is idle to suggest that these men this week should be told that, through no fault of their own, they are unfit to vote for guardians, and, possibly, the following week, that they are fit to vote at a Parliamentary election, where infinitely greater issues are at stake.
The fundamental condition of our government in this country is that we depend on the common sense of the great mass of the people, and we believe—and up to the present we have had every right to believe, and all history teaches us to believe—that men and women in this country see through those specious promises of men who try to beguile them into thinking that they will get something which will be to their personal advantage. I believe that they have always voted, and always will continue to vote, in favour of the best interests of the public. Anyone who does not believe that does not believe in the essential characteristics of our own race, and it seems to me that, if a party like our own—which is proposing to give further proof, if proof were needed, of its belief in the common cense of our people, by increasing the electorate by 5,000,000—if a party like ours chose to pass a Motion of this sort, it would be wholly and utterly illogical.
The Motion is anti-democratic; it is very unfair, and it could only, as it seems to me, be passed, if it were passed at all, by Members of the party opposite. One of their leading publicists—I hope I am not maligning him when I say that he is a member of the party opposite—Mr. H. G. Wells, in a book that has been recently published, says:
The essential weakness of democracy is that the great mass of human beings are not sufficiently intelligent to follow political issues at all.
I think that, when hon. Members opposite or when many of their satellites get up and make, as they do, promises of further doles and £4 a week for everyone, they really believe in their hearts what Mr. H. G. Wells says. namely, that the mass of the people are not sufficiently intelligent to see through it. We do not follow that principle. We have much greater faith in the common sense of the people of this country. We believe that they will see through this sort of thing. We do not make promises of that kind, and that is one of the reasons why we are here in these numbers, and why we shall continue to be here.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Had it not been for the fact that the conduct of certain boards of guardians in this country has come under the serious review of the Government this Motion would not have been before the House this afternoon. Behind the Motion, and behind all the speeches that have been made in its favour, is the assumption that, where there has been anything in the nature of a sympathetic point of view on the part of boards of guardians, that is an attempt on the part of the Labour party in local government to utilise the rates for subsidising the unemployed and the poor of the community. A great deal has been said in the course of this Debate about the ex-service man. We know, of course. what the other side claim in regard to sympathy with the ex-service man, and we are entitled to point the moral, as we have already done; but I am not so much concerned about the distinction that is drawn between the ex-service man and other members of the community, because we all know that, at any rate after the War had been in progress for some time, every person who was able to do service for the country was compelled to do so, with the exception, of course, of those whose conscience would not brook any compulsion whatever. The question of the ex-service man is not the essential point. The essential point is the fact that an attempt is being made, or would be made if there were any chance at all of this Motion being carried, to set the clock hack and to break down the principle of democracy for which this nation, and the people of this nation, have fought so well
in the past. So far as the question of Poor Law relief is concerned, surely the point is this, that the people who are wasters ought not to get relief. That is perfectly true, and it is a matter for good government and good administration on the part of local boards of guardians. The assumption, however, always seems to be made by members of the party opposite that there is a lot of people who could get work but who refuse to search for work and prefer to live on public charity. There is a very great fallacy in that idea. Work does not drop from the skies. If there be anything at all in the suggestion that people refuse to work for whom work is available, it should be the duty of some public authority or other to point out where that work is available.
The Minister of Health some time ago spoke about the administration in West Ham, and said that, owing to the strictness of that administration, some of these wastrels in despair went out and found work. Where did they find that work? Were those jobs specially made for them? Did they come out of the blue? If not, they were jobs that were vacant temporarily or momentarily, and not permanently. Jobs are not waiting to be filled while people are able to fill them, and, if those people went out and found work, they could only do so at the expense of people who had filled those jobs previously, unless it be suggested that the jobs had not been filled previously, but had been started de novo. There was, however, nothing of the kind; what happened in these cases was simply that jobs were found for people who were out of work, and the rates are just as much called upon to maintain the people who are now out of work as would have been the case if no such work had been found. Really, the issue is the finding of work, and I make a great distinction between indiscriminate Poor Law relief and what is called excessive Poor Law relief. I do not believe, nor do the Labour party believe, in indiscriminate Poor Law relief in local areas; they do not encourage it, and have never stood for that kind of thing at all. I know that a number of people who profess to hold advanced opinions imagine that indiscriminate Poor Law relief is somewhat of a revolution, but that is not the principle of the
Labour party; the Labour party does not stand for indiscriminate Poor Law relief. On the question of excessive Poor Law relief, I would like to put forward this point of view: Nothing that has ever been brought before this House in Debate with regard to the whole question of Poor Law relief has shown anything that could from any human point of view be described as excessive—[Interruption]—yes, relatively to local circumstances, perhaps; but, after all, if you take the highest amount that has ever been paid by the most extravagant board of guardians, what does it amount to? We had a case, in answer, I think, to a question, only a few days ago, where a man with a wife and six children was getting the tremendous sum of 24s. 6d. a week. Let hon. Members look at that, and ask themselves whether it is really excessive, and let them bear in mind that these people are unable to obtain work. Even if that man were a wastrel, if he could obtain work, he could only obtain the work that someone else is doing. Moreover, the question of Poor Law relief is not merely a. question of the wastrel; it is a question also of his wife and his children, and those children ought to be industrial assets to the nation. Therefore, when we talk about this question of local extravagance, I do suggest that we ought to make a distinction in regard to this idea of indiscriminate Poor Law relief. That has to be proved, and it certainly should be corrected, but there ought to be humane and just treatment of the poor of this country. An hon. Member opposite made the remarkable statement that people could be elected to boards of guardians who were, or had been, in receipt of Poor Law relief. That is altogether untrue; that is not the position; that is not the law of the country.
There was a case only a little while ago at Kingston, where a member of a board of guardians was knocked down by a motor car, I think, and had temporarily to he taken to a public institution. That raised the whole question as far as that individual was concerned, and there was no question at all about the fact that no man who has been in receipt of Poor Law relief can be elected as a member of a board of guardians. The hon. Member
who seconded the Motion happens to be my own Member; I live in his constituency. He suggested in the course of the speech that the vote possessed by people in receipt of Poor Law relief was simply a question of bribery, and laid the position open to all sorts of bribery and semi-corruption in regard to local administration, and he said he, himself, personally had not made promises to the electorate—at any rate, promises which would make any difference to their financial circumstances. I am quite prepared to prove that the hon. Member has a very bad memory as far as that is concerned. There is at present in his own constituency a guardians' election in progress, and I have received from the Municipal Reform candidates, the candidates of his own party, programmes, manifestoes and election addresses which tell me, as a ratepayer, that if I vote for Municipal Reform I shall save in rates. I am quite serious. I am asked by the supporters of the hon. Member to vote according to my pocket, and not on the merits of the question. I would not think of depriving members of the Municipal Reform party or anybody else of the right to vote. If you want clean government which has no shadow of corruption, you must see that the people have an intelligent conception of their duties and responsibilities, and that undesirable people shall be taken off——

Mr. TASKER: Will the hon. Member permit me to say that I have never been a candidate for the guardians?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I shall have something to say about it in my own division. There is another point before I sit down, and that is in regard to limited companies not being able to vote in the districts where their factories are situated. We are told that they are large ratepayers, and that although a poor person who has been in receipt of public relief is enabled to vote, people who pay these large rates are unable to do so. I should have thought we had passed a long way beyond the whole conception of property qualification—the old idea that not human beings but bricks and mortar, stocks and shares, and other things were entitled to vote. We have no doubt that the shareholders of a company in, say, Poplar, West Ham or Bermondsey can have as
many votes as anybody else in that community if they are prepared to live in and accept the local responsibilities of these districts. But they do not do anything of the kind. They live somewhere else, and make their money out of the works, factories, industry or business in which they have shares in those areas. The money is made out of the people who work in these factories and from the people who buy the products of these factories. The shareholders do not make it. They take the dividends out of the areas in which they would not think of living, and they expect the same sort of power over those who live in those areas, and who, by force of circumstances, have had to accept relief. I do not think this Motion is going to be carried, not that Members on the other side of the House would not like it to be carried, because it is part of their attitude towards democracy, but because they have one eye on their principles as usual, and the other on their constituencies.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have to make an apology for seeming to deal with some matters that concern more the Department of the Minister of Health. As far as the question affects Poor Law administration, it is a matter for the Minister of Health, but when it affects franchise it becomes a matter for the Home Secretary. I have listened to the Debate with great interest, and I think it has been a good Debate. It has brought out one or two interesting points. It is quite clear that a large proportion of Members do not want to see any further extension of what the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) called the appeal to the financial interest of the voters in this matter. There is great difficulty on both sides as to how far it is reasonable to expect every man to vote, irrespective of his position, and in spite of the fact that he may be directly living on Poor Law relief. That is one side of the question. The other side is that it is not only impossible but wrong to deprive of the vote those men who in many cases, having fought for us during the War, have had to give up their work because they came back wounded. It is very hard lines that, they should be deprived of their vote because they have gone on the Poor Law or some other form of relief.
I want to put the difficulties before the House, so that it should realise the position. The vote of those in receipt of Poor Law relief is quite a modern innovation. Under the old Common Law, no one who received relief of any kind was entitled to vote. During the Governments of both Liberals and Conservatives it was an accepted principle that a man who lived on Poor Law relief should not have the vote, but in 1918 the House decided to get rid of that disqualification. A very curious tone ran right through that Debate. There was a feeling that it was unfair to retain the disqualification for Parliamentary voting, while there was a great deal to be said in favour of retaining it far local self-government. One hon. Member said, "I am not sure whether the present system of Poor Law relief would make a free and an independent electorate." There you get the real gravamen of the position. You want the elector to be able to give his vote freely and independently. I think a very respected Member of the Labour party, who is no longer with us, Mr. Wardle, assisted in that Debate, and pointed out that this stigma for Parliamentary purposes was removed altogether: as to its removal for local government purposes, he said, "I quite agree that that may be different." So one sees there are those differences of opinion as to whether it is right to remove the disqualification altogether or put back the disqualification. We have to face the facts as they are. We have to consider them as they are before we arrive at any hasty decision. There is no doubt that Poor Law relief since the removal of that disqualification has increased enormously. If you look at the last year before the War, 1913, when the country was prosperous, you find that 630,000 people were in receipt of Poor Law relief. In 1920, two years after the disqualification was removed, 567,000 people were in receipt of Poor Law relief and it has steadily gone up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I should like to give the facts first. I want the House of Commons to realise what the facts are. The figures have gone up very largely even during 1920–21. At the end of last year we had 1,250,000 in receipt of Poor Law relief.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Was there not a miner's stoppage in 1921?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In London, where trade is as good and employment is as good as in 1913, the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief has doubled. I do not say what the reason is, but in a great city of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people we get, compared with 10 years ago, double the amount of Poor Law relief. In 1920 pauperism in London was 100,000 and last year 217,000. I want the House to realise the magnitude of the problem which we and which Poor Law reformers are facing. We want a free and intelligent vote of the electorate on all questions, Parliamentary, municipal and boards of guardians. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion thought the whole thing perfectly simple. I have gone into the question and have found it exceedingly difficult. You would get, in fact you did get before the removal of the disqualification, men deprived of their vote who had not had poor relief for 18 months. If we are going to have, as we probably shall have in the future, a three months' qualification with a yearly register, you will find that a man will only be disqualified if he has taken Poor Law relief in one particular quarter of the year before the register is made up. He might receive relief to his heart's content for eight months and four weeks of the year and would not be disqualified, but, if he received relief during the particular three months prior to the making up of the register, he would be disqualified. Then, of course, there are other difficulties in regard to the female franchise—the disqualification of the husband or wife receiving, one or the other, Poor Law relief, and there are enormous difficulties in dealing fairly with the question of ex-service men. I am bound to say that there would be very great difficulty in doing anything to disfranchise ex-service men. The way, as it appeals to me, of making elections fair is, as the hon. Member for Peckham said, to deal not with the voter but with the candidate who appeals unfairly to the voter.

Mr. DALTON: The right hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth that were uttered by another hon. Member. I said abolish the guardians and merge their functions.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite thought the hon. Member would agree
with me that it is desirable to raise our politics to the highest level. It may seem rather Utopian, but we should appeal to the electors on the broadest possible basis, and not on direct personal motive. The hon. Member who preceded me made a very fair point in mentioning the appeal of a candidate who said, "Vote for us, and your rates will be lower." I do not want to quote cases, but there have been very distinct cases—the Minister of Health has dealt with them in the House and in public—where attempts have been made to obtain votes by pocket influence, such as "Vote for me, and we will give a larger measure of poor relief." I am glad the hon. Member is against indiscriminate poor relief. I trust the whole of his party will agree with him there. As to excessive relief, that is obviously a question of amount on which opinion may differ, but I do not think it is fair to quote relief, to a married man with six children, of 26s. I have here a large number of scales, and there is no scale I can see of any well-known board of guardians in town or country where a man with six shildren gets anything like 26s. [Interruption.] They run to about 41s. to 43s. They are all distinctly higher than the amount given by the hon. Member.
I want to take the statement of the hon. Member for Peckham. I shall tell the Minister of Health that in his scheme of Poor Law reform he will have the support of the leaders of the Labour party in getting rid of the taint of bribery or unfair influence on the electors. The briber is far worse than the man who takes a bribe. Everyone will agree with that. The man who gives a bribe in order to get something for himself, whether it is a vote or anything else, is far worse than the man who receives it. While my appeal would be to candidates to raise the tone of their political discussion and of their attempts to obtain votes, very great help will be given by the reform the Government hope to bring in in the very near future, and, if in the course of that we can find means of dealing with the question of merging the guardians in some larger body, I believe it will very largely get rid of this very real difficulty.
What line then should I ask my hon. Friends to take, and what line do I
intend to take myself in regard to this question? On the whole, if my hon. Friend who introduced the Debate, in a speech which showed much care and much thought, could see his way not to press it to a Division, I think he would be wise. [Interruption.] I want to keep the Debate on the kind of level the House of Commons should adopt and not to make a mere party attack. Speaking as a responsible Minister, having heard the Debate, and having gone into the matter very fully not merely for hours or days but for weeks, and the Cabinet having gone into it equally fully, as at present advised I cannot think the proposal my hon. Friend mikes is the best one for dealing with what all sections of the House admit is a very real difficulty. If he could see his way not to press it, I think that is the best way of dealing with the difficulty.

Mr. HARVEY: In view of the very interesting and instructive discussion which has been conducted generally with good will on both sides, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. SPEAKER: The objection was too late.

Orders of the Day — ELECTORAL REFORM.

Mr. WIGGINS: I beg to move,
That this House considers the present method of Parliamentary election unsatisfactory, and is of the opinion that such changes in the electoral machinery of the country should be made as will enable the political opinions of the voters to be reflected in the composition of the House of Commons.
It is a curious coincidence that the two Members who managed to win first and second places in the ballot have put down for consideration questions of voting and the franchise and that to-morrow we are considering the question of the franchise once more. The necessity for a thorough examination into the method of parliamentary elections becomes, in my opinion, more pressing every day. A remark was made by a right hon. Gentleman recently that, while he was not prepared
to enter into a controversy as to whether there will be more than three parties in the future, his own view was that there will only be two, the Conservative party and the Socialists. I think he said the Liberal party will disappear. Notwithstanding this forecast, which was made just before the result of the last two by-elections, I am definitely of opinion that at any rate for many years we are to have at least three and perhaps four parties contending for office and power. Speaking for the Liberal party, I aver most solemnly that we are neither dead nor dying. Rather we are growing in virility, in numbers, arid in importance every day and day by day. We are even overflowing our allotted space in this House. I am prepared to take the average of any party in the House. The country itself recognises that we are an indispensable part of the political progress of the country, as is shown by what happened at the last by-election, and I leave it to the other parties, two, three, or four as the case may be, as to which of them is going to disappear into oblivion. We certainly are not.
Assuming this view is correct, and taking into consideration the fact that the Government have placed on the stocks a Bill to extend the franchise to all females over 21 years of age, I feel that I am quite safe in asserting the urgent necessity of electoral reform. The fact that there will be added to the list 5,500,000 voters must, in my opinion, make still more difficult than under present conditions the scheme of majority representation. The result of the last General Election proved the desirability of some reform in electoral methods. At that election, the number of voters on the register was 21,750,000, while 16,500,000 votes were polled, equal to 76 per cent. of the electors who had a chance of voting. Taking into consideration the fact that 32 seats were uncontested and that those represented considerably over 1,000,000 votes, we arrive at the conclusion that in the 583 constituencies that were contested, 85 per cent, of the voters actually polled their vote. Mention has been made of some local elections in which only 11 per cent. went to the poll. We have to remember that this truly remarkable average was probably brought about very largely by
what is known as the Red Letter and the advocacy of the "Daily Mail," which paper attempted, with some measure of success, to scare electors into voting against Socialism. Let us examine the figures. The Conservatives polled 7,835,285 votes and secured 399 seats, an average of 19,644 per Member.
Labour polled 5,432,589 votes and secured 143 seats, an average of 37,915 per Member. Liberals polled 2,925,142 votes—not much evidence of them dying, Mr. Speaker—and only secured 36 seats, an average of 80,954 votes per Member. Other Independent parties polled 197,673 votes and secured five seats, an average of 39,534 votes per Member. The average of the whole election in the contested seats gave each Member represented 28,104 votes. On this basis, the representation would not have been as it is. It would have been Liberals 110 Members, Conservatives 295 Members, Labour 202 Members, and others eight Members, an entirely different proposition to the present position with the Conservatives holding 413 seats. The value of the Liberal representation in voting strength is four times that which is represented on the other side of the House, and on the Labour side the representation is twice as valuable as that on the other side of the House. Under these conditions, figures lose their significance and become mere noughts and crosses. Let us take the last seven by-elections. The Conservatives polled 93,403 votes and secured three seats, an average of 31,134 votes per Member. The Liberals polled 69,661 votes and also secured three seats, an average of 23,220 votes per Member. Labour polled 64,182 votes, but secured only one seat—very unfair to Labour. [Interruption.] I am absolutely certain, taking it on the last election, it will not show that Labour has the proper advantage of votes as compared with the party on the other side of the House, and that is my point in mentioning these figures.
Having shown, I think, to everybody the utter absurdity of our present system, I cannot understand anybody or any party opposing the Motion which I have put upon the Paper for a reform of the system of election. Every party in this House, and I should imagine every Member of this House, pays, at least, lip service to democracy, and I should have
thought that everybody in their heart would have agreed with the principles underlying my Motion. But I note that on the Order Paper there is an Amendment down to my Motion which proves, at any rate, that my contention is wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not the first time."] The man who does not make mistakes does not make anything. The Amendment openly suggests that any alteration of the present inequitable system would lead to political corruption, whatever that may mean—I suppose we shall hear later—to the instability of the State, to the powerlessness of Government, and would add to the burdens of individual Members of Parliament. That is really a reckless and extravagant use of adjectives without any meaning whatever. Those Members of this House who place their party interests before the clear logic of democratic representation, I can quite understand, would not be enthusiastic in their support of an amended principle which might have the effect of preventing them in the future from gaining an undue advantage, but to suggest to this House that the idea of giving to votes something like an equal value would cause political corruption is quite fantastic. I know that it is hard at times to do something which we acknowledge in our hearts to be right and proper, but which at the same time will deprive us of a privilege or an advantage that we hold and at the same time perhaps give an advantage to our opponents. It is indeed hard. I can only conjecture at the moment that the supporters of the Amendment have in their minds when they speak of political corruption the prospect of alliances that made possible under the system of a second ballot.
With regard to undermining the stability of the State as mentioned in the Amendment, I did not know that in moving my Motion I was a potential wrecker of the State. I certainly had no intention of this, and neither I nor my friends have any such intention now. Quite the reverse. We want to give strength and stability to the State. We want to give a fair, equitable and comparable value to the votes of the people. We want to make democracy a reality, and thereby make the country safe through the democratic ideals and measures. What terrible people the
Members on the other side of the House must think we are, whereas, as a matter of fact, the wickedness consist in their belief that their majority in this House, in some miraculous, mysterious manner has its counterpart in the minds of the voters outside this House. What a delusion—and they know it—and what an awakening there soon will be. My Motion does not suggest by what method the elections of the future shall be governed. There are, of course, as everybody in this House knows, several schools of thought who have propounded what they believe to be the correct method. There are a good many who believe in the method of proportional representation. I am bound to confess that I was for some time a strong supporter of the idea of proportional representation. In theory, I consider it quite admirable, but when it comes to be put into actual operation, difficulties seem at once to arise. I may be magnifying the trouble. I hope I am not, and that I am giving it a fair measure of value. In Germany, the last two or three elections have been worked under a system of proportional representation, and all the Governments have been combinations of the middle parties and have gathered up the common forces.
All things taken into consideration, I think everybody will agree that Germany has made remarkable progress during the last few years. The adoption of proportional representation, therefore, has not, as suggested by hon. Members on the other side of the House, contributed to the instability of the State in that particular direction, at any rate. Quite the reverse. When we consider that at the next election between 25,000,000 and 26,000,000 electors will be entitled to vote in this country, and that single constituencies will have as many as 60,000 to 70,000 names on the voters' list, and that under proportional representation it is considered advisable to have at least four-member constituencies and preferably five, we can picture to ourselves the magnitude of the whole affair. In London and in other large towns returning at least four Members, the scheme might be workable, but imagine the difficulties which would appear in widespread county areas. I can visualise that it would be quite possible to incorporate towns which now return two or three Members by adding
to them county areas contiguous to them and their being fairly workable. But to weld together constituencies, say no more than four constituencies like St. Ives, would, I fear, make it almost impossible for candidates to make themselves known to the people whom they wish to represent, and I am very much afraid they would find it very difficult to impress their personalities on the electors anywhere. I think the result of the adoption of that method would be to cause the voting in these particular areas to take place on a party ticket which would quickly become purely mechanical. I hope the day will be far distant in this country when we may have to vote on mere tickets or lists, although, perhaps, even that calamity might be preferable to a repetition of the last General Election from the point of view of majority representation.
There is another method, which I did not wish to describe particularly, known as percentage proportional representation. It is a very ingenious and a very clever idea. It involves no change in the constituency at all or in the system of voting. It depends on first choice, and first choice only. The personality of the candiate is not lost, but may even be made more effective, because he has to take care that he obtains a certain definite proportion of the total electorate in his constituency. It is claimed that it gives an exact replica of the expressed wishes of the country with the smallest margin of error. I am quite convinced of the fact that any scheme, either in existence or yet to be evolved, will be bound to contain somewhere within its provisions the possibility of some margin of error, but that does not mean to say that we must continue the present system because a perfect one has not yet been invented or ever will be. The difficulty of percentage proportional representation is that the whole of the country has to be one unit and that the votes recorded fall into parties. The votes would be counted in the constituencies in the first instance and later counted in London, and the final results might take days or weeks before candidates would get to know of them. I candidly confess that I am not enamoured of this scheme. If it be true, as stated by Viscount Younger, that a man might be at the head of the poll for a particular constituency and yet not have a seat in this House, it seems
to me that the scheme falls to the ground. I frankly admit, also, that a great deal of the joy and pleasure of a contested election would disappear if after our work on the day of election we had to wait for days, and probably weeks, before we knew our fate. It is bad enough to have to wait one night or two nights.
Then we come to the second ballot, of which a good many people are in favour to-day. It was at one time quite common on the Continent, but I believe that every country has dropped it now, except France. When we remember that at the present time 140 Members of this House are minority representatives, and when we consider the probability of three-cornered contests in 400 to 500 constituencies at the next election and a consequent large increase in the number of minority representatives, we realise the size the problem would reach under a second ballot scheme. Presuming that the number rises to 200, it would mean, under a second ballot scheme, second elections in 200 places, with the consequent huge expense and dislocation of trade, and the bare possibility of that political corruption arising in the first ballot and in the second ballot which the supporters of the Amendment so much fear. I am speaking for myself alone—I wipe the question of the second ballot clean off the slate as impracticable, expensive and cumbrous in the extreme.
I come next to the alternative vote, which could quite easily be adopted in all single-member constituencies where more than two nominations are made for election. In the two-member areas it might be somewhat more complicated, but not a great deal. From the alternative vote system one gets similar powers as from the second ballot, but without its outstanding disadvantages. Under the second ballot, a certain time has to elapse and then an election has to take place between the two top candidates in the first election. In the alternative vote system where there are more than two candidates nominated for one seat the voter would have the right to exercise his or her right to vote for the person whom they first preferred. In that case, they would put the figure I instead of a cross against the name of the chosen candidate. They could make a second choice by putting the figure 2 opposite the name of the candidate whom they
selected as their second choice. After the election has taken place and there are three or four candidates for one seat, the third candidate or the third and fourth candidates, as the case might be, would drop out, and their second preferences would be distributed between the two remaining candidates. That would decide who was to be elected, and it, would certainly show the feelings of the electors for majority representation as against minority representation.
The advantage of the alternative vote system over the second ballot lies largely in the fact that at one and the same time the second choice must be made, if it is to be made at all. No one is forced to give a second preference. No one is obliged to vote for more than their first choice, but if they do choose to make more than one choice, it must be done at one and the same time. The difficulty of the second ballot is that the people who vote in the first election may not vote in the second election, while the people who vote in the second election may not have voted in the first. Therefore, the result would be from the same electoral area, but it would be quite an altered electorate. Under the alternative vote system I cannot see that any hidden negotiations could take place between political parties. If any negotiations did take place they would have to be quite open and above ground, because no one could foretell how the result would work out and, consequently, no charge of political corruption could be made, honestly, against such a scheme. We shall hear what the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have to say from their point of view.
My Resolution does not in any way press for the adoption of either one or other of the suggested re-arrangements of our electoral system; but, without hesitation, I admit my partiality for the alternative vote system as the one most likely to succeed. What I am, in effect, asking for in the Motion is a full consideration of the whole position, and I suggest that a conference presided over by you, Mr. Speaker, is the best means available for the purpose. I would remind the House that this proposal creates no precedent. The Royal Commission of 1910 considered the matter and made recommendations. They suggested
partly proportional representation and partly the alternative vote. The Speaker's Conference of 1917 suggested the alternative vote. That proposal was carried by a majority in the Speaker's Committee, and it was moved, debated and carried in this House and put into a Bill; but when the Bill returned from the House of Lords their Lordships had deleted the alternative vote proposal. That proposal was reinserted and sent again to the House of Lords, but a second time the House of Lords deleted it, and rather than lose the remainder of the Bill, the House of Commons at that date insisted no further. About the time of the last General Election the Prime Minister made a communication to the Press in regard to the question of the franchise. He stated that:
The Unionist party is in favour of equal political rights for men and women, and desire that the question of the extension of the franchise should if possible be settled by agreement. With this in view, they would, if returned to power, propose that the matter should be referred to a conference of all political parties on the lines of the Ullswater (Mr. Speaker Lowther's) Committee.
That was said in 1924. To-morrow, we are to debate a Bill for the extension of the franchise to women over 21 years of age, without any consideration having been given in that Bill, so far as I know, as to any alteration of the present method of election. If it was right for the Prime Minister in 1924 to make such a promise to the country in regard to the extension of the franchise, why has that not been done? Surely, that was a matter which could have been debated between the parties, and I suggest that the proposal in my Resolution could be considered in exactly the same way.
The last Clause of my Motion asks this House to express the opinion that such changes in the electoral machinery of the country should be made as will enable the political opinions of the voters to be reflected in the composition of the House of Commons. What could be more democratic? What could be fairer to each and every political party? The party of which I have the honour to be a member asks for fair play and no favour; but it is not only my party which presses this point and asks for a change in the present system. Mr. J. L. Garvin, addressing the Oxford Luncheon Club, on the
21st October last, spoke very strongly on this matter. He said:
The Conservatives are convinced that between Liberalism and Labour knocking each other out they will repeat their triumph, but the thing is a pure gamble. Socialism might turn the tables on the Conservatives, obtaining just in the same way, by a minority vote in the constituencies, an absolute majority vote in the House of Commons. … The most solid of all Constitutional safeguards is a change in the electoral basis so as to exclude the possibility of revolutionary legislation being enacted by any Government representing only a minority of the people.
The last General Election and many by-elections since have not in any way truly reflected the views of the people who voted in those elections. The results instead of being a reflection of the views of the people, have been a grotesque distortion, and that is what we wish to avoid in future. In view of the expressed desire of the Prime Minister when speaking to the junior Unionists the other day to make this country safe for democracy, and his wish to attract young men and young women to his party as an expression of democratic government, and in view of the sympathetic reply to the Debate in the House of Lords a few days ago, by a Member of the Government, and in view of the promise made by the Prime Minister that the franchise should be considered by a Speaker's Conference, may I suggest to the representatives of the Government that my Resolution might be left, at any rate, to a free vote of the House.
I would remind hon. Members that by supporting the Motion they are not committed to any particular scheme of electoral reform. Support of my Resolution only means that the House is in favour of ample consideration being given to the question of electoral reform by a non-political conference, and as far as my party are concerned no other construction would be placed upon such a vote on this Motion. But we must regard an adverse vote as a sign that the majority of this House do not desire that the electors of this country shall have equal opportunity, as near as may be, irrespective of their party labels. Surely, the Government supporters, especially in view of what their distinguished leader has said in regard to democracy, do not want the electors to feel that already holding, as they do, a position in this House out of all proportion to the votes
they received at the last general election, by hook or by crook they intend to perpetuate that unfair representation and the system which gave it. If they do, may I suggest that at the next election they should head their manifestoes to the electors with a mailed fist holding a battle-axe, and that their motto or slogan should be "What I have, I hold." If they take that attitude, I would ask: Is that the way to make democracy safe for this country or the country safe for democracy? Will a decision against my Motion do anything to gladden the hearts of the millions of women voters who are to be added to the register by the Bill to be debated to-morrow? If the voters come to believe that that is the definite purpose of the Conservative party, what effect will it have?
If such be the case, and I do not wish to believe it, they will rue the day. If such a belief becomes prevalent will it not—I strongly believe it will—force the electors to the conclusion that for all who do not think and vote as Conservatives the dice is so loaded against them that their regard and respect for democracy and democratic government will fade away and die? If the people lose faith in these institutions and ideas, what can they put in place of them but extreme measures and direct actions which would lead to disaster? In the same spirit in which the Prime Minister addressed the Junior Unionists the other clay, for the purpose of making the country safe for democracy, I ask for an overwhelming vote of the House in favour of my Motion.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so for the reason that during the last 50 years it has been my lot to take a somewhat active part in every one of the General Elections during that period. I have, therefore, been somewhat intimately brought into contact with our electoral conditions. Perhaps I may answer an objection which is sometimes raised against those of us who conceive that some change is necessary, that we are doing it because we find it very difficult to get into the House of Commons under existing conditions. That argument, at any rate, has no application to myself, for I have been particularly fortunate in that respect. On personal grounds, I make no complaint of the present system. I respectfully submit that
this question is altogether too big to be looked at from the standpoint of personal considerations or party considerations. The welfare of the nation is at stake, and it is purely from that standpoint that I desire to give the Motion my support. I do so precisely on the terms of the Motion:
That this House considers the present method of Parliamentary election unsatisfactory.
I should have thought that such a statement, after and in view of the speech to which we have just listened, would have been accepted without the slightest opposition. I felt sure that this might turn out to be a very tame Debate, because there could be no opposition to such a self-evident proposition, and I was very much like the controversialist of old who expressed an earnest desire that his adversary would write a book. I felt an earnest desire that our adversaries would table an Amendment, and they have very kindly done so, and it is to recognise "the proved wisdom of the present system of voting at elections." I never anticipated that Three Musketeers like the three hon. Members opposite would have committed themselves to such a statement as that, and, therefore, I acknowledge with gratitude the interest they have brought into the Debate. They have placed that statement on the Paper not only in face of the arguments and facts of my hon. Friend, but in face of the general feeling in the country on this subject, so well expressed by the gentleman who is the Sunday mentor of the Tory party. I quote a little further from that speech referred to by my hon. Friend, because it expresses the position perhaps more effectively than I can:
The old party system has been broken up; and we have one of the worst electoral systems in the world. We have a system devoid of a reasoned basis. It stakes, upon a gamble at the polls the control of Imperial, foreign, as well as domestic affairs. One of the three parties may gain, as at present, an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. What the Conservative party have done the Socialists may do. The Red Letter was one kind of fluke, but another kind of fluke may put a minority of the nation in overwhelming and absolute control of the House of Commons.
When it is possible for a thoughtful man to make such a statement in regard to our existing system surely the matter requires consideration. I do not mention any of the other particular methods, I am content at the moment to show the unsatisfactory condition of the present system and to say that it is a vital and urgent matter demanding consideration by a new committee. I cannot conceive a more opportune time for doing this than the present, when we are just going to add very largely to those on the franchise. The Prime Minister has made two speeches lately, each of which have a material effect upon the issues now before us. I join with the followers of the Prime Minister in their delight at hearing the voice of Jacob. The trouble with us is that we so constantly feel the hands of Esau. I hope that Jacob's voice on this occasion is going to influence his party and that they will support so reasonable a proposition as we have presented to the House.
In his first speech to the women who were going to be enfranchised, the Prime Minister told them that they would be under a sense of obligation and duty in having the franchise, because the franchise in itself was not enough. I agree, but I submit that if the franchise is to be granted it should be a franchise that is worth having. The effectiveness of the vote is the important thing. It is far more important than the vote itself. Let me give an incident which occurred to me when I first stood as a candidate for this House as far back as 1895. A canvasser reported to me that he had asked a voter to give his vote on my behalf, but he indignantly refused, and the reason he gave was this, that he had waited long enough already for the vote and having got it he did not mean to give it to anybody, he meant to keep it himself. He was not so foolish as some people may think. He was just as wise as so many people necessarily are under existing conditions.
As an absolute matter of fact, if an inquiry was made into the working of this system it would turn out that tens of thousands of voters waste their votes at every election, and there are tens of thousands of voters who have voted at every General Election for some years who have never yet taken any part in the direct election of a representative
to this House. I have stood all my life as a supporter of democracy, and have urged the importance of a greater public spirit, but that can only be created when a voter realises that his vote has same practical worth. If his vote has no effect, it means there will be a loss of public spirit and, therefore, it is absolutely vital that we should change our system so that a voter may realise his responsibilities in the matter. Let me make a further quotation from the speech which the Prime Minister made to Young Conservatives, I believe he called them affectionately "The Imps." He used these words:
You will never get, that perfect democracy, at which we aim, until all the people play their part.
I agree, but I feel that if you cannot get all you want, at any rate get as much as you can. If we cannot get all the people, surely we should try to get a majority of the people, and not be content with a government which is created by a sheer minority of the people. When I am sitting here with hon. Friends above the Gangway in our combined opposition I am always conscious of the fact that in the actual votes cast at the last election it is we who represent the people and not hon. Members opposite. We, together, polled more votes than they did, yet by the absurdity of our present system they with a minority of votes have an enormous majority in this House, and we with the majority of votes are in a hopeless minority. Yet we are told that we have to maintain our present system in order to continue the stability of our institutions.
This is an inverted pyramid. It is a danger to the State. I believe in stable government, in a stable Constitution. Unless we can have stability I look with anxiety to what lies in front. The only way to maintain democracy is to maintain representative institutions which really represent. Institutions which do not represent become a mockery. When I see, on the one hand, possible Fascism, and the other the dangers of Communism, I realise that it is vital to alter our system and to make it really representative of the wishes of the people. Therefore, I conclude—I do not want to weary the House—with one short further quotation from the Prime Minister's speech:
If at home in Great Britain, in working our democracy we fail, what then? Our failure, and this is more true of us than of any people in the world, will not affect ourselves only, our failure would shake the fabric of the universe.
I believe that is true. I have always regarded this as the pioneer nation of the world. We are the Mother of Parliaments, and I believe the Mother of Parliaments will still provide sufficient mother wit to face this new situation, a situation which everybody recognises is difficult. But the greater the difficulty the more the responsibility and the larger the opportunity. I believe this country and this Parliament is prepared to face their responsibilities so that we shall still lead the world as the greatest Parliament in the world, representing our people fairly and proportionately. It is in that spirit and to that end that I second the Motion.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
recognising the proved wisdom of the present system of voting at elections, declines to countenance the adoption of new devices which must inevitably add to the dangers of political corruption, to the instability of the State, to the powerlessness of all Governments in office, and to the burdens of the individual Member of Parliament.
When I saw that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins) had chosen the question of electoral reform as the subject for Debate this evening I hoped he would have placed on the Paper some proposals of a concrete character which we could discuss from the point of view of practical politics, and I was rather disappointed when I saw that the Motion which was drafted was exceedingly vague in its terms. Not only so, but the speech of the hon. Member was equally vague. He criticised many of the specifics put forward for the purpose of rectifying grievances, but his speech concluded with a plea not for any special form of reform but simply that the question might stand over in order that there may be a conference on the matter. We know that the Liberal party has a passion for inquiries. In actual fact, we know all the data with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of our present system. We have had it now for over 600 years, and
we know very well the merits and demerits of what may be called the relative majority system.
For 70 years past many of the projects to which hon. Members have alluded, like proportional representation and the alternative vote, have been advocated by theorists and political philosophers. We know what they are, and in fact we have seen concrete examples of their application in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, in the Universities and in a great many of our Dominions. We do really know all the facts of the case, and it is because we know the facts that we have tabled the Amendment which stands in our name. The hon. Member who moved the Motion treats the question of the advantages and disadvantages of the relative majority system as a matter on which you can, if you like, frame an entirely new constitution regardless of the lessons of history. He says that the present system is undemocratic, unfair and unsafe. The actual experience of past years has been quite the contrary. When there has been a strong feeling in the country that feeling has found expression in Parliamentary elections.
No one who wins an election ever complains that it is unfair. It is only when you lose that you begin to complain about the rules. It is only when you lose an election that you complain about the waste of votes. All those who vote for unsuccessful candidates always waste their votes in one sense, but it will be just the same if you have proportional representation or the alternative vote. Men who vote for the loser always throw their votes away, and I cannot see how the proposed scheme will make that any better. In reality the main defence of our present system is that it is founded on a bedrock of long experience. The system has been in use for six centuries, and, taking the long view, no one can say that the system has ever stood in the way of the expression of the will of the people, so far as that will can be expressed at general elections. Where there has been a strong current of feeling that current of feeling has won the day. The system is one which has been adopted not only in our Parliamentary life, but in the whole organised life of the country. There is no club, no limited company, no type of association, which does not adopt
the same method of voting, and to say that it leads to a distortion of public opinion is to make an ill-founded assertion. The candidate for any of the positions in most of the corporate bodies of the country secures the seat if he gets the largest support. It does not seem so democratic if you insist on a man who has a strong preference voting for, in addition to the man whom he wishes to see elected, one among his opponents whom he dislikes the least. It is to that it would very often lead.
The present system has satisfied the great bulk of the people of this country. It is a very quick way, a straightforward way and an easily intelligible way, and certainly it does not excite discontent amongst the great mass. Every alternative proposition is slow and complex and is certainly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as the alternative vote attaches very great weight to the second votes of persons who are minded to give a second vote, whereas people who feel wholeheartedly are probably anxious not to vote for a second candidate in any circumstances. Let me state what I conceive to be the two main objections against any of the systems which the hon. Member has suggested, particularly proportional representation and the alternative vote. The first objection is instability. The Mover of the Motion has not, I think, understood the point of the allusion in the Amendment to instability. I say that it causes instability in government because, if Members of Parliament are to mirror exactly the votes cast by every party in the State, you would never get a Government really in power. I maintain that even if a Government does not represent a majority of the voters in the country, it is far better to have it elected on those lines than to have a weak and powerless Government elected on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
Under proportional representation, the majority of practically every Government in the last 50 years would have been almost if not entirely wiped away. In 1900 the Government had a majority of 134, but under proportional representation it would have had a majority of 16. So from 1900 onwards, the Government in power, according to the hon. Member's scheme, would have had either a minority of the votes in the House or else have had such a highly precarious majority
that it would never have felt strong in the House, even if the whole of its supporters were present on the occasion of every Debate and every Division. That would be a vice in our constitution. Most men would rather have even the party which they have most bitterly opposed put in office with a decent working majority, so that the government of the country could be carried on efficiently, rather than have a Government on the edge of the precipice with a very precarious hold of office and quite unable to pass any legislation of any kind.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said there was a danger of revolutionary legislation unless we adopted one of the two alternatives. If we did adopt any of these alternative methods, there would not only be no danger of revolutionary legislation but no danger of any legislation at all, because no Measure of first class importance could be passed by any Government if this artificial system were adopted, for no party would have what one might call a reasonable working majority. We have had an illustration in Southern Ireland where the system of proportional representation is so worked that apparently no Government in power is likely to have a majority of more than two or three in the Irish Parliament. The result would be in this country that no really controversial Measure would ever pass into law. The system would involve an incessant temporising by the Government of the day in home affairs, and incessant difficulties in taking a strong line in foreign affairs. I contend that a weak Government, which is the necessary corollary to the various shifts for electoral reform which are advocated by the two hon. Members would not conduce to the welfare of the people. After all, the test to be applied in political affairs is not whether it is perfect from the abstract point of view. The test is, does it work? The present system does work. A system which will never give any Government a majority of more than 10 or 20 is self-condemned.
A second objection with regard to both these schemes is that they must lead to compacts between various parties inside and outside the House. It would be a case of "You give me your second vote and our supporters will give you our second vote." It is human nature that
there should be compacts of this sort. That is all very well for a party that has no principles, but I cannot conceive the Conservative party making compacts of that kind. We go to the country always on a plain issue, and we do not make compacts and compromises of that sort. Speaking for myself, I always tell the electors in the Moss Side Division of Manchester, "If you put Moss Side before Moscow, you will vote for me, but if you put Moscow before Moss Side you will vote for the other fellow." I do not think you will find many compacts made on our side. If you take the view that these political compacts are things to be avoided if possible, you would certainly prefer the present simple and direct way, by which no party in the State goes in for compromise.
Let me deal with proportional representation specifically. The first objection to it is the vast size of the constituencies. Most, of them would be too large for the ordinary human being to keep in anything like personal relation and touch with his constituents. At present that is hard enough in an electorate of 50,000, but it would be impossible with a constituency of 500,000, which is what is contemplated by proportional representation. It is particularly hard upon the young man who is less known than the older candidate, and upon the poor man who cannot make himself popular and well known by giving subscriptions over a large area, and upon the man who has to work for his own living and cannot be so much among the constituents. Then, again, where you have four or five candidates running for one party in this huge constituency, it very largely increases the power of the caucus and lessens the chance of the independent candidate getting through. Furthermore, the cost would be very great. Even if the cost were limited by Statute, the difficulty of communicating with this vast population and of getting about among this vast population, would be far greater than it is in the relatively small constituency in which the candidate or the Member moves at the present time.
It seems to me that the main objective of this Resolution is not to idealise and purify politics. It is to save the Liberal party. Whether the Liberal party is worth saving I am not prepared to argue
to-day but, if it is to be saved, I suggest that the proper way is by the party relying upon its principles and its policy, and not by introducing a number of makeshifts and devices simply intended to enable the party to preserve its existence in the House of Commons. The aim of our political life is to represent the views of the majority of the constituents and the largest number of the constituents at the present time get the representation which they want. It is open to everyone to convert his fellow citizens. In my submission the true line of advance is to maintain our existing system, which has worked so well, rather than adopt the various devices which have been suggested. The story is told of Lord Morley, how, after 50 years experience of the Liberal party, he was present at a very interesting discussion on the question whether politics was an art or a science. Having heard views on both sides, he said that in his opinion politics was neither an art nor a science but a dodge.

Major PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Mover and Seconder of the Motion claim to have put it down for the purpose of calling attention to the need for electoral reform, but it was quite impossible to gather their opinions as to what the reform should be. We have heard their opinion that there should be an inquiry, but it is difficult to know what there is to investigate which is not already well-known to the House and the country. The point which seems to have been in the minds of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, was expressed in the last part of the speech of the Seconder when he said that owing to the absurdity of the present system he and his Friends, who really represented a majority, were in a minority in the House. But, if we take the figures given by the Mover of the Resolution, we see that undoubtedly, according to the proportion of votes cast at the last Election, the party which got the most votes is in the majority, and the party which got the least number of votes is in the minority. It is suggested, however, that we should put the Liberal votes and the Labour votes together; that they are jointly the official Opposition
and that, properly speaking, on the number of votes cast, they should be on this side of the House as the Government. If the hon. Member opposite did not mean that he meant nothing at all. That was what he said. He said in effect, "We who are in Opposition are really representative of a majority and should be on the other side of the House."
If the two parties opposite are one, then there is no need for this new method of election. In that case you have simply two parties in the State—the Conservatives and the rest of them. You cannot have more than two parties if you regard the Liberals and the Labour party as one. That is the whole point. The suggestion is that the alternative vote is one of the ways which the committee to be set up might find the truly democratic way out of the difficulty. But the alternative vote merely means that if a Liberal candidate were first on the list, a Labour candidate second and a Conservative third, and the Liberal had not a majority of all the votes cast, it would be quite possible, by the working of the alternative vote, for the Conservative to get in. Would hon. Members regard that result as representative of that constituency If so, they must believe that second choice is better than first choice, and that the majority of people who vote nowadays for one particular person and one particular party, would be more properly represented by somebody who was their second choice. But hon. Members are aware from their own experience of elections that in a three-party contest, the only things that count in the opinion of electors are the particular candidate and the particular party they choose and they do not care two figs for the man or the party who might be their second choice under this proposal.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Yes they do. "Keep the Socialist out," is the cry in Lothian at the moment.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: You are putting him in.

Mr. BROWN: I am pointing out the fact.

Major PRICE: The fact remains that the ordinary man or woman in an election chooses one candidate and one policy and votes accordingly and the other candidates and policies are outside
the ken of that elector altogether. That is the practical experience of those who have taken part in elections all over Great Britain. When the Liberal party were in power before the War why did they not bring in legislation such as they now suggest? Because the party was in power and the votes were cast in their favour, and they were not likely to suggest that that great democratic opinion, which put them into power, was wrong. Nor are we likely to suggest it, because we feel that we properly represent the majority of the people of this country under the existing system. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about the Zinovieff letter. In my part of the world they did not care two pins about it. They had never heard about it and they do not want to hear about it. The truth of the matter is that the Zinovieff letter is a good old red herring, when something arises which hon. Members opposite do not like. It is not we who drag it up; it is always dragged up by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not think that on a Motion dealing with electoral reform we can revive the controversies of last week.

Major PRICE: I am sorry, Sir, and I shall endeavour not to bring in the Zinovieff letter. The suggestion has been made that the proposal of the Resolution is necessary at this time because of the addition to the electorate which is coming into effect shortly. But why should that be a reason for bringing in a more complicated system of elections than we have now? One knows how many difficulties there are at present even under the simple method of to-day, but Proportional Representation is bound to increase the expense, the difficulties and also the possibilities that the man who is not wanted will be returned. As I have said the alternative vote is purely a question of a second choice. In addition to that, one of the great dangers to the country is the introduction of the log rolling principle which has been very evident recently. We know that suggestions can be made—"You will all back a horse for a place, instead of a horse for a win." Again, the second ballot was discarded by the proposer, as was Proportional Representation, and he fell back on the alternative vote, but the
Seconder of the Motion spoke in generalities. His one idea was to set up the Committee and to let the Committee worry it out and then come back to us with the result. The safeguard of the Liberal party is everlasting Committees. One Committee produces a Green Book, another Committee produces a Yellow Book, and I presume that this Committee will produce a Black Book. You cannot see their policy for books.
The suggestion is that because Mr. Garvin made a certain proposal, in very indefinite terms, suggesting that something should be done, we must immediately fall in with it because he is our spokesman, but nobody who has been taking a course of the Sunday "Observer" for the last 12 months would suggest that Mr. Garvin was voicing the opinions of the Conservative party. Mr. Garvin is perfectly independent in voicing his own feelings. If the Liberals like to adopt them, I hope they will continue to do so when they are not quite in accordance with their own views, but why the House of Commons should adopt something because it is suggested in a newspaper is very difficult to understand. If there are reasonable, sound arguments put forward from the Opposition, I am sure we should be glad to withdraw the Amendment, but we have heard no reason whatever why a change should be made.
The present system has the one great virtue that it works, that, speaking generally, it represents the feeling of the country. You get your alternative Governments in power. Sometimes the feeling of the country goes Liberal, sometimes it goes Conservative, sometimes it will go Labour, but whatever the feeling is, we know very well that there is a fairly simple proposition for an elector to understand, and that is that he has a chance, when it comes to an election, to vote either Labour, Conservative, or Liberal, or for a man representing either of those parties. For what do the people vote? They vote for a policy and they vote for a man, and when they vote in that way you cannot go into this question of a second choice at all. The Seconder of the Motion himself admitted that we were the greatest Parliament and the greatest democratic country in the world, and we have achieved this
position under the present system. Why then go in for a change for the sake of change? If the Liberal party like to produce a Black Book, as I have suggested, we are willing to consider it, if we have the argument put before us in a cogent form.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The House would listen with interest not unmingled with amusement to the attempts made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to justify, in the words of the Amendment,
the proved wisdom of the present system of voting at elections.
We might have heard a little more about "the proved wisdom." We heard a great deal about Zinovieff and other matters, but we heard nothing about "the proved wisdom of the present system," and what neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Amendment did was to justify a system of voting at elections which at the last General Election gave to a party holding 7,838,000 votes, 415 Members in this House, while the party on these benches, holding 5,423,000 vote, got only 152 Members in this House, and the Liberal party, holding 2,925,000 votes, got only 42 Members. In other words, if, for the sake of argument, we were to add the votes polled by the two sections of the Opposition——

Major PRICE: Why add them?

Mr. JOHNSTON: They are both in Opposition to the Government, and if we were to add them together we should get this, that the Opposition in this House represent 8,348,000 votes, while the Government represent only 7,838,000 votes. In other words, the two Oppositions represent between them over half a million electors more than do the Government, but while the two Oppositions have between them 510,000 more electors than have the Government, we find that whereas the Government have 415 Members in this House, the two Oppositions added together have only 194 Members. "The proved wisdom" of that system of representation does not seem to me to be apparent. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment made the statement that, after all, the present system works, that it functions, and that in a rough and ready way it expresses the desire of the democracy in this country.
I find a Noble Viscount, Viscount Burnham, speaking for his party in the House of Lords on 29th March last year on the subject of the second ballot, saying this:
Parliamentary Government is no longer the golden fetish that it used to be in Victorian days. It has been cast aside by three of the great States of Europe, and I do not know that it is proving itself a great success in China.
Then we have had other representative Members of the present Government declaring more or less openly for a Fascist Government, for a Government, not of representative democracy, but of a minority, a Government of vested interests, and it seems to me that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment in more or less polite terms simply defended a system of Government by minority, as they have not in any way justified "the proved wisdom of the present system of voting at elections."

Major PRICE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the policy of the Labour party and the policy of the Liberal party at the last election were the same?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No.

Major PRICE: Then how does he make his majority?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I simply say that, neither at the last election nor now, were the policy of the Liberal party and the policy of the Labour party the same. But they are both in opposition to the Government. It may be that, on many issues, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway support the Government or abstain from voting, but the point is, that officially they are not Members of the Government. They do not support the Government. We sit in opposition, and the point I am making is that the dominant majority in this House, the Government of the country which enforces its will on ail sections of the community, does not, in point of fact, represent the majority of the electors of this country; and we ought to have, before this Debate closes, some indication from the hon. Gentlemen opposite as to how far they can justify the terms of their Amendment.
For myself, and I believe for a very large majority of Members on this side of the Gangway, I am in favour of some kind of alternative voting system. I am not in favour of proportional representation as I understand it, and I agree
with the hon. Gentleman, who moved the Amendment, very largely in his comments on this subject. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion also put forward criticisms of what is commonly called the proportional representation system. I come from a country where we have experience of proportional representation in operation. We have it in education authority elections in Scotland, and the result has been the very reverse of satisfactory. We have our education authority elections now covering such large areas that only great electoral machines can function at all, and these great electoral machines, in the education authority elections, have turned out to be the dominant theological interests in Scotland, and what we witness is not a contest upon educational policy at all. I am not exaggerating when I say that there are candidates who stand, and who succeed in being elected, to these education authorities, who never mention education at all. Education is not their policy; they never mention the word. The sole purpose for which they stand, and the sole programme on which they are elected is theological controversy. We have Roman Catholic and Protestant struggles taking the place of what ought to be contests upon educational matters. These large areas have produced another curious effect. The smaller interests, upon whom proportional representation was supposed to confer exceptional advantages, are thrust out altogether.
I have never heard the supporters of proportional representation adequately explain how they could deal under their system with by-elections. If you had a by-election you would require, I take it, to poll a whole area in which that by-election had occurred. It might be two or three counties, and you would require to poll the whole of those counties in order to secure a result. Then the increased size of the area would have another curious effect. It would increase the potential numbers of the by-elections in one Parliament, It would increase the expenses of elections which candidates would require to meet. In the Parliament of 1900, which lasted for five years, there were no fewer than 100 by-elections; and if one could visualise 100 by-elections taking place in the lifetime
of one Parliament under a system of proportional representation, one would see something of the difficulties which may arise. We have been told by prominent advocates of the proportional representation system that we might do away with by-elections altogether. If we did that, we should do away with a very valuable test of popular feeling between General Elections, and for that reason alone I should say that we ought to maintain our system of by-elections.
We come to the question of the size of constituencies. When the Commission of 1910 decided to recommend that, as a general rule, the size of the constituency should be such as to send on an average seven Members to Parliament we began to see what the size of a constituency must be. Take the area with which I am best, acquainted, the area in Central Scotland, and the area with which the right hon. Gentleman who is to speak for the Government is familiar: There are two Members in Dumbartonshire; we add to that area three Members for Stirlingshire, and we still have only five; then we must add Perthshire to make seven. That is an area which stretches from one side of Scotland to another, and I had the curiosity to turn it up on the map to see what that would mean, and I find that it would mean going almost, as the crow files, 80 miles, including about a thousand villages and towns. It would obviously be impossible for any candidate to cover such a constituency as that. It might be argued that we might maintain our present system in the rural areas, and confine proportional representation to the cities and towns, but we should still be up against the same difficulty in some of the larger towns as in the county areas; and when the practical difficulties of the system of proportional representation are considered, we must, however in theory we may be enamoured of the mathematical accuracy with which it is endowed, give up the proposal altogether. There are on the continent, I am told, rather humorous results arising out of some of these systems of proportional representation. In the town and city of Danzig, for example, I am informed that there were about 20 parties contesting an election there, some of them the most curious of parties. Actually at the last election, there was a Greengrocers' party
and a Tenants' Rent Restitution party, putting forward candidates and going to the poll. In the chaos which resulted, there was a very small proportion of the electors who troubled to record their votes, for either the Greengrocers' party or the Tenants' party or any other party.
If, however, we can find objections to a system of proportional representation, and if we can find, as I think, very considerable objections to the present unfair and unjust system of representation, what remains? My own personal conviction is that the only effective and reasonable, cheap and speedy alternative is the alternative vote itself. It may not be perfect. It may be, as an hon. Member pointed out, that in a large number of cases it may amount to representation by the electors' second choice and not by the first choice at all. Nevertheless, as things are, in the flux and flow of politics and public opinion, it is surely right and proper that a Government should not be elected under an obsolete electoral system and on a definite minority basis. This House ought to make every inquiry and take every possible step to find out the most suitable and easy method of securing direct and effective representation of our people in this House, because unless we can secure that democracy shall be fairly represented there is no half way to a minority Government of violence, whether it be a Fascist Government or a Communist Government.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: This question is one on which, unfortunately, I find myself out of harmony with most of my friends on this side of the House, and although I have not agreed as yet with any of the speeches which have been made, except with that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne), with which I was practically in entire agreement, yet I shall have to find myself voting for the Motion and against the Amendment. But I do find myself in considerable disagreement with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). He alluded to the unsatisfactory nature of the elections for the education authority in Glasgow. I happen to have with me the figures, which have been analysed, for that particular election, and in giving names to the parties I am taking them as they come from the newspaper cutting,
and I hope I am not libelling anybody. It says that the Moderates, whoever they may be, secured 145,000 votes and got 30 seats, whereas their proper proportion would have been 29.2; the Catholics got 52,551 votes and got 11 seats, whereas their proper proportion would have been 10.5—they did a little bit better proportionately; whereas the Labour party, in Glasgow of all places, out of the 224,000 votes which were cast polled only 23,751 votes, and got four seats, whereas they ought to have got 4.5. Proportional representation does not pretend to be accurate to decimal points, but outside decimal points that seems to be fairly accurate, and it seems to me that the hon. Member's views on proportional representation must have been influenced by the fact that the result did not come out more favourably to his party.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps I did not explain what I mean. I was not asking, and I do not ask, that each party should get its exact number of representatives according to the number of votes cast. What I said was that under this system of proportional representation the education authority had ceased to be elected on educational issues and that it had become a theological wrangle, and if the hon. Member will add together the figures of the Moderates, who are the Protestants, and the Roman Catholics he will find that practically nobody did vote for anything except theology.

9.0 p.m.

Sir S. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member will study the old School Board elections he will find that they were fought out on religious issues; unfortunately, education questions usually are fought out on religious issues, and party politics do not enter into them very much, so whether we have the old "first past the post system," or a long list of candidates fighting an election on education into which religion enters, we are bound to find that the religious question does count. I do not think that case condemns the system of proportional representation.
The hon. Member for Dundee became rather eloquent about the size of the constituencies which it would be necessary to have. He said that seven-Member constituencies would be needed. May I assure him, as one who has studied this question for a long time, that seven is a rather excessive number, and that the
best number is about five, but that the system can be worked with three. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent university seats, where there are two Members, complain rather bitterly about the system. They say it is very hard to have to get the overwhelming majority which is necessary in order to win two seats. It is even money each way, although one side is very much stronger than the other. I can see their difficulty, and the only answer I can make is that with two-Member seats proportional representation does not show up at its best; you must have three Members or more. The difficulty with regard to by-elections is rather too long to enter upon this evening. Of course, there is the point that by-elections are possibly not very edifying. They follow the usual trend. They go against the Government of the day, though the seats are won back at the General Election, and they give every grouser and grumbler a chance of giving a dig to the Government. Even if it is felt that in a democracy they are a desirable check upon the Government, means could be found whereby, even in a four- or five-Member constituency, each of the Members after election could take a part of that constituency as his particular freehold, and that would be the part of the constituency which would be polled should he depart this life, or retire from Parliament for any other reason. There are various other methods whereby such difficulties could be got rid of, but I do not want to take up too much time with them now.
I want to deal with this matter from the point of view of the speeches we have heard this evening. There is the reference in the Amendment to "new devices." One would think that this proposal was something entirely new, something as new as daylight saving was 20 years ago, something that had never been tried and never been experimented with. They forget entirely, or they ignore the fact, that nearly the whole of the Nordic world lives under a system of proportional representation. To-day we, as Nordics, hold ourselves up as the salt of the earth. At the present time Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland all have proportional representation. We hear very little about it there, because it is
working satisfactorily, and I think that ought to give some of my hon. Friends reason to think a little about this question and to study it further. Some of my hon. Friends for Northern Ireland say that it has not worked very well with them. I do not want to go into the position in Northern Ireland, because they will get a large enough majority whatever system they have; but we are also told that it has been a failure in Southern Ireland. I have it on the very best authority that if at the first of the elections which took place there last year there had not been the system of proportional representation—if we had had the "First past the post system"—in all probability De Valera would have had a clear majority in the Irish Dail. I am not saying whether that would have been desirable or undesirable. I am only pointing out the fact that that is, in all probability, what would have happened.
On the Continent, in the recent elections which took place in Norway the Labour party obtained the largest poll, and they formed a Government. In all probability, under a. first-class system of representation they would have had a clear majority of representatives which would have enabled them to carry their policy into law. When they brought in proportional representation they were defeated, and another party came into power. That will happen again and again. The extremists under proportional representation will not be able to get a clear majority, and they will not be able to carry out their extreme policy until they can get a clear majority. With regard to proportional representation, if I am to be skinned alive and have my birthright taken away from my children, I would like it to be done by a clear majority. I cannot see why my hon. Friends do not see the danger of what has been proposed. Although the party opposite represents a minority in the country, under the system suggested they could skin us all alive and ruin us. This system of the first past the post may have suited us in the past, but it will not suit us in the future.
With regard to the question generally, it seems to me that the present system is an outrage, and it is entirely contrary to all ideas of justice. It may have worked well in the past, but who can say with any certainty that it will work
well in the future? When there are systems which are fair and known and have been tried in other parts of the world and have not failed, I think we should be very foolish if we ignored them.

Captain BOURNE: With the exception of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, none of the previous speakers has had very much to say about proportional representation. I do not think it matters very much whether a constituency returns three, five or seven Members. With the present size of the House and with the somewhat limited number of Members, what is proposed would mean constituencies of at least 160,000 running up to 350,000 or even 500,000 and constituencies of that size must destroy the personal touch between the Members and those they represent. A Member may be very well known in his own individual district, but few of us would be known over the much wider districts suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I do not wish to see anything introduced into the electoral system which will advance the power of the machine, because I believe the power of the machine should be diminished rather than increased. That is one of the dangers of proportional representation.
I think it is perfectly certain that you will tend to produce a series of groups in the House of Commons. I do not believe that there is very much to be said for any system which produces a number of groups, some of them strong and some weak, and not one of which may be capable of carrying on the Government unless it is supported by the other groups. Such a state of things would mean an unlimited amount of logrolling among Members. A Bill which is likely to be strongly supported by a particular group because it suits their particular policy is likely to contain all the evils of that kind of legislation which is not desired by a majority of the country, and which would probably be forced down the throats of the country as the price of its support of the Government. This result is inseparable from any system which does not produce a clear majority.
The last difficulty, and by no means the least, is that proportional representation is very complicated at an election. Undoubtedly, there are a great many spoiled voting papers, and on some of them you find written the opinions of the electors. I remember the case of one old lady who said "What is this Captain Bourne doing? I do not want him here, so I put a cross against his name." The result was that she voted for me under the impression that she was showing her disapproval of my candidature. In an election of this sort, you have a whole string of names, and crosses are put against them. You go through a system that so puzzles a number of the electors that many of them vote as they do not mean to vote, and in many cases they deprive themselves of any vote at all by not carrying out the instructions. The system is very complicated. It has been tried in the case of the University constituencies in this country, and even there they have made a hopeless hash of it; and, frequently, they have had to have two or three recounts and amended returns before the results have been declared.
I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee about by-elections. I think the only satisfactory system is that which they have in Holland where the whole country is treated as one constituency and the man who last represented the constituency goes up one. This system maintains a personal tie between the constituency and its representative. We have had a great deal of discussion about the supposition that the present Government was a minority Government. Both the hon. Member who moved this Motion and the hon. Member for Dundee dealt with that aspect of this question. I have looked carefully through the election returns and analysed the figures for the three-corner elections. It may he true that, if you take the total votes cast and ignore unopposed returns, the Government have not a majority of the votes, and I will give the figures in a moment. In the present House of Commons, 131 Members were re-elected upon a minority vote.
I have not counted the number of three-cornered fights which showed clear majorities, but these 131 included 79 Conservatives, 12 Liberals, 36 Labour Members
and four Independents. There are at the present moment in the House 408 Conservatives, 44 Liberals, 155 Labour Members and six Independents. Taking the whole of the 79 Conservatives who were returned on a minority vote, and making a handsome present of this number to the two wings of the Opposition to divide among themselves as they like, the Government would still have a majority in this House of 45 Members who were returned by a majority vote in their constituencies. Hon. Members may not like this, but, if they will take the trouble to analyse the figures, they will find that what I have said is true.
The reason for the variation in the figures is that the constituencies in this country are by no means equally represented in this House. There may be, and I think there are, good reasons for that. For one thing, an urban constituency, in point of square miles, has a bigger population which is easier to deal with than in the case of a scattered county constituency, where the mere physical difficulties of getting about are enormous. That may account for the inequality of the votes cast as between the different parties, but there can be no doubt, leaving out those constituencies where the Conservatives did not gain a clear majority, that the Conservative party represents a clear majority of the constituencies, and, after all, if yon take the alternative vote; which has been suggested to-day, and which seems to be the favourite panacea of those who are supporting this Motion, the Conservative party would still be in power and would have a majority in the House to-day.
Taking the three-cornered contests, I have taken the trouble to look through those cases where Labour candidates were at the bottom. There were some 35 constituencies in which that was the case. I do not believe that the most sanguine Liberal would claim that all those Labour votes would necessarily, on a second or alternative vote, have been given to his party; I think that most probably they would have been divided, and that it is quite possible that something like half that number of Conservatives would have been returned to this House, while that is probably equally true of the Liberal party. Although I would not for a moment suggest that, if the alternative vote had been in force,
we should necessarily have had the whole of those 79 seats, I do not think it can be claimed by hon. Members opposite that the Labour party would have gained those 35 seats. I think that the Liberal party would have gained at least 12, which I would remind them is a higher proportion of seats with a minority total than any party has in the House. I am not quite sure, therefore, that it would be to their advantage to upset the present system, however much they may think so.
It has always seemed to me that a discussion as to what might have happened at an election had the conditions been different is one of the most profitless discussions that can be indulged in. We all, when we have been beaten, are disposed to speculate on what would have happened, for instance, if the third candidate had not been there, or if the people who did not vote—and there is always a large number who do not vote at all—had come to the poll. Really, the present system does produce a result. It does, as a rule, give a government with a majority which enables it to carry out its policy, and, even judging by recent by-elections, the workings of the system are not unpopular. There is an old saying:
I am certain that hope is the only thing that is left to the Liberal party. Whether they feel that that hope is represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his cornucopia, I do not know, but, whatever hope they may have, I am sure that it is with the feeling that no change can be for the worse, and some change might be for the better, that they have put down this Motion.

Viscount SANDON: There is an air of what might almost be called comic unreality in a Debate of this kind. In the first place, we see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who was previously accompanied by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), sitting with enthusiasm on the Conservative benches, and a certain amount of that atmosphere seems to have pervaded the whole Debate. Furthermore, a marked interest has been shown by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in our future welfare. There have been nods of
approval of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts), with regard to our welfare in the future, while hon. Members opposite were all beaming at the excellence of that point. It is very satisfactory, when we find ourselves with a small majority of something approaching 200, to feel that we are comforted in our weak moments by feelings of marked friendship of that character.
The reason for this unreality is that we all know perfectly well—and it is a state of affairs which is very common on days when we have these private discussions—that the discussion is purely academic, and that there is no chance whatsoever of anything being done. There are certain aspects of this question which to my mind merit consideration from an angle different from the normal one, namely, that of abstruse questions as to whether proportional representation or other forms of voting are desirable, and are mathematically more fair to the people of this country. There are, for instance, certain objections to general elections in principle. In the first place, they tend to create a sudden line of demarcation between the carrying out of varying policies. You might get a considerable danger of it on foreign policy, and you always get it in every other form of policy; and I believe that one of the things that we want most in this country is some means of ensuring continuity. I put forward the suggestion that I am about to make in the full and confident spirit of unreality which has been sustained throughout the rest of the Debate, because I know that there is equally no possibility of its being adopted!
I believe, however, that it would be equally democratic, far sounder, and just as much in the interests of everyone, if we abolished General Elections altogether, and had a system whereby one of the 615 Members of the House retired every third day, say every Monday and Thursday, and perpetually, throughout eternity, we had a by-election on each of those days. The people would preserve their rights as before, policies would change as before as between one party and another coming into office, but the change would be gradual, and the time when the strength of parties was very even could be wholesomely spent in
passing non-contentious legislation, often important but of a kind usually crowded out by the ordinary routine of this House. There would, of course, be certain difficulties in the first place. It would be necessary, of course, to start with a General Election, because it would be obviously unfair to the Opposition parties that the party in power should legislate on a matter of this kind. Then there would have to be some provision for the people who would normally retire during the first month, and for a period up to, say, a year after the Election took place. I am perfectly convinced that, from a theoretical point of view and from a democratic point of view, this scheme would be sound, and would not give any favour or assistance to any one party over another.
Of course, it would be important that Elections should not be carried out in any one area at the same time, lest some local influences should bear on the issue. It would be necessary to have an Election on one day, say, in London, on the next occasion in an agricultural constituency in the North, and so on. Is would have to be worked out on a permanent basis by a number of commissioners. But I say with the greatest emphasis that I believe that this system, although it may sound revolutionary, would tend towards better legislation and also better representation of the public feeling on the conduct of the Government of the day.
If we are to go in for highbrow schemes of mathematical equity, I believe that there are far better schemes than the ones suggested to-night. Personally, I do not hold with their schemes or the better one I can propose. I believe my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Price) was right when he said the real crux of the question of the present system is that it works. But I do want to put this before hon. Members as being a preferable crank to the various forms of cranks which have been put forward as improvements on the existing systems from the point of view of equity. If you were to have the whole of the United Kingdom as one constituency, and you had the voters of this country voting for a party label on their card and not for a man, and if you added the total number of votes for the whole country and divided the number
between the various parties proportionately pro rata, and the distribution between these parties was, say, 400 seats won by the Conservatives and 200 by the Socialists and the odd 15 by the Liberals——

Mr. E. BROWN: Or the other way round.

Viscount SANDON: Well, it is an example, take it any way you like. You would then have the exact voting and a record would have been kept of it in each existing Division and you would then apply the number allowed to the party to the constituencies according to the ones who had the largest majorities for that party, or smallest minorities as in some cases a seat might be allotted to a district where there was no majority. Personally, I do not believe in that sort of thing. But, if you are going in for equity, there is more equity in schemes of that sort than those which have been suggested to-night. I say further, in a case of that kind you would have to have a party caucus in advance selecting the individuals to represent that side in the event of that side being allotted the seat. I believe that is sound and democratic in every way, because I think the only people who are entitled to a voice in regard to the man are those who are sufficiently keen and interested in the welfare of their country, which they translate into terms of welfare of their party, to subscribe to the party organisation, and, therefore, have a voice in the selection of candidates. The ordinary citizen who is not sufficiently interested to take any part in the matter does not deserve to have any more than the recording of his vote on the general principles of public policy, and not on the individual candidates.
As I have already said, personally I do not hold with that. I should, if there were an opportunity, support a plan for the abolition of the General Election, but there are certain other aspects of electoral reform which, to my mind, are really likely to come within the sphere of action and legislation in the course of the next generation, and which, if carried out wisely and sensibly, will redound to the interests of the community. In the first place, I think there should be automatic redistribution after every
census is taken, without any legislation. In the second place, I am a convinced believer in compulsory voting. I think voting is one of the primary instincts of citizenship, and it is carried out in other countries such as in New Zealand, where they have a fine to enforce it. I am entirely in favour of it in this country. Then, I think, there should be far more polling booths in the country—in fact in each village—for it is perfectly disgraceful in some districts. I know of cases in my own constituency and there are places where they have to go 15 miles. It is undemocratic, and certainly absolutely impossible if there were compulsory voting to have this.
I think that the only exemption in the case of compulsory voting, if there were exemption at all, should be in certain sick cases, but in regard to people who are normally incapacitated from going to the poll, I think the State on a medical certificate should make provision for carriage. I have never believed in a system of carrying people to the poll. As long as you have the present electoral system you have got to accept it all from top to bottom, but if you had complete revision of the electoral law, one of the things which would have to be considered would be the abolition of having vehicles to take people to the poll and provision for carriage by the Stale For those who had medical certificates.
Then I should like to see the abolition of all posters and leaflets. Everyone in this House knows—and we have all been through the mill—the appalling amount of money spent in General Elections or at by-elections, money absolutely thrown down the sink. It is absolutely unproductive. I believe there should be the most drastic method adopted in regard to such expenditure. The only legitimate form of election expenditure should be for the hire of rooms and the circulation of election addresses, and perhaps one address afterwards, and they should be paid by the State. I quite agree to the objections to canvassing, but I am aware that nothing this House can do can possibly put a stop to canvassing, and therefore we have got to put up with it. As regards other matters, such as redistribution, compulsory voting and carriage to the poll, those matters will come up for legislation in the course of the next 25 or 30 years.
On the broad question raised to-night, I quite agree that it is as easy as winking to find many systems of government which are superior on paper and far fairer theoretically than we have at present, but if you look at them from the angle of the historian over a long period of years, you are bound to come to the conclusion that, however much unfairness in this direction or that there may be—and as far as unfairness is concerned the world is full of it in every direction, and we thrive on it—on the whole it is a system which has worked successfully and has given everyone his chance. It has given every party its chance, and the Socialist party for a comparatively short time has had its fling and thinks it is going to have it again—[An HON. MEMBER: "At the next Election!"]—I said it thinks; I did not say anyone else did. I would ask hon. Members, even hon. Members below the Gangway, not to look at it from the point of view of 1926 or 1927, but over the period from 1800 to 1900 or to 1927, for it is the long view we must take, and this system has worked with tremendous success. The alterations which I have in mind are not alterations of a crucial character. I believe that they have a certain importance, and are alterations which may lead to good, but I do not think this House will ever he prepared to adopt plans in the direction of any logical mathematical equity, which has been tried in other countries and has never been enthusiastically spoken of after it has been tried. I believe the verdict that will be recorded to-night will be recorded every time this matter is brought before the House.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I found it a little difficult to follow the Noble Lord's views on proportional representation. He gave us his own ideas as to how he would like an election to be run, and he finished up by saying that the present system was the most perfect. I am a believer in proportional representation. I believe the single transferable vote is the most perfect method of voting that we have to-day on paper. Unfortunately, I admit, there are several difficulties, and the greatest of them is the fact that it usually leads to a multiplicity of parties, with the result that in those countries where it has been tried, including
Belgium, the people, generally speaking, are dissatisfied and would like to return to the old system of majority voting. What I should like to see is proportional representation, not brought into active life in regard to Parliamentary elections, but first tried in municipal elections throughout the country, and from those municipal elections, perhaps county council elections, we should gain a considerable amount of experience which would enable us to determine whether it would be worthy of trial in Parliamentary elections.
I am entirely opposed to the Noble Lord in his view that we should have compulsory voting. I am very sorry indeed to think a good Conservative should hold such a view. It is the party on my right that usually believes in compulsion, while the Conservative party believes in personal liberty. For example, presuming we compelled a man to vote if he did not wish to vote for the two or three particular candidates on the ballot paper, he would simply spoil his paper. In Belgium, there is a fine of 50 francs if you do not record your vote. To-day, that does not amount to much, and so there are a good many spoilt votes. At the same time, you cannot and should not compel a man to vote if in his opinion neither the Conservative nor the Labour nor the Liberal candidate agrees with the opinions that he himself holds. I therefore hope that this House one day, perhaps in the near future, will pass a Bill making proportional representation with the single transferable vote compulsory in local elections, and I believe, if that is successful, we may be inclined to try it on a larger scale in Parliamentary elections.

Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Member who has just sat down said he was strongly against compulsory voting and he saw difficulties in the way of compelling a man to vote. It might have been more topical had he considered the various means in which a woman might be compelled to vote, and whether indeed it would be possible at all. On some matters I am in agreement with the Noble Lord. I listened to his speech with the very greatest interest and I found myself in a certain amount of sympathy with him when he advocated the abolition of general elections. I am sure if to that were added the suggestion of some previous
speakers that by-elections should be abolished, we should find ourselves a very happy family indeed, and we should in course of time get to know each other very well. I also listened with very great interest to the condemnatory exposition of proportional representation of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). His remarks merit very careful attention on the part of those who advocate proportional representation. If we compare them with the other experiences we have near at hand in local elections in the North of Ireland and in other places, the practical evidence seems to be strongly against that system.
The hon. Member also mentioned the, case of Italy, and he deplored the rise of Fascism there. I believe there is a very great deal of evidence that tends to show that the revolution in Italy was brought about by this very system of proportional representation which has found so many advocates among us tonight. I believe prior to the revolution the Italian. Parliament was so divided among various groups and the representation of parties was so exact, having been reduced to such beautiful mathematical equality, that successive Governments were very weak and got controlled by groups, arid were quite unable to cope with the rise of Communist feeling which was growing up very rapidly indeed. Therefore, it is not unfair to say that the revolution in Italy, and consequently the swing over which we see to-day to Fascism, was due to that very system of proportional representation. So-called exactitude of representation tends to make weak Governments and so brings the Parliamentary system into contempt.
Many calculations have been made tonight in adding up the numbers of votes at the General Election cast for the different parties. After the analysis of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), in which he showed how the Conservative party represents the constituencies, the method of adding the votes together and trying to draw deductions therefrom, is shown to be very weak. Another reason why that method cannot be held to be a sound basis of argument is that it does not take account of the fact that in this country an election is a contest between two or three candidates, and every elector is aware of that and votes accordingly
If, for example, a contest is rather one-sided, he may not trouble to turn out to vote at all. To put together the whole of the figures cast for one party and the whole of the figures cast for another party does not truly show the balance of opinion in the country. Again, we have three parties in the House and three parties in the country, each representing a distinct and different point of view and a distinct and different doctrine. Surely under these circumstances the party that is strongest has the right to govern. Surely in a particular constituency, if there are three candidates representing three different doctrines, the only fair thing is for the one that gets the most votes to represent that constituency. Is it not a weakening of principle to get an elector to say, for example, "I am a Socialist, but whom do I prefer after the Socialist? Do I prefer the Liberal or the Conservative?" Surely it is the best for him to say, "I am a Socialist. I will vote for a Socialist, and I will vote for no other but a Socialist." In that way we encourage political principle and we get a far better representation of political principles. That, surely, must be the main thing in any sound constitution system. Therefore, I for one will hold on to the present system.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I think all of us on these benches must realise that the Members of the Liberal party were really quite justified in bringing forward this Motion, and we also sympathise with them in doing so, because, alter all, whatever we may think about our majority, we must in fairness agree that they had the worst of the luck. It is quite possible that on another occasion they may have the best of the luck, but the mere fact that fortune did not smile on them this time is really not an argument in favour of altering our existing system. The hon. Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts) said that the majority of the Nordic world lived under a system of proportional representation. I am not an authority on the Nordic world, but I have had, before I came into this House, considerable experience, as a member of the diplomatic service, of the results of foreign Governments abroad and foreign Parliaments. It was often my good fortune, and more often my ill-fortune, to have to spend many hours a day listening to debates in those foreign Parliaments.
We may not agree about majority rule, but I am Perfectly certain that the majority of the English-speaking races of the world believe in two-party government. We and America and all our Dominions without any exception stand for the two-party system of government.
I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Hereford that really the examples he took to support his case were singularly weak. For example, he quoted Germany and Norway. Surely, the one thing that is apparent in Germany since the war is the lack of a really strong Government that has lasted for any length of time. France has now come back to single-member constituencies. Anyone who has any knowledge of any of these Governments in foreign countries where the system of large constituencies prevails must realise that the only effect of it is the return of large numbers of small groups following individual leaders. That system, I submit, is one that is totally alien to the whole of our characteristics. I said at the beginning that I sympathised with the Liberal party in bringing forward this Motion, but I should very deeply regret to see any change made. I can say with sincerity that I was one of those who was returned by a majority vote, because I happened to have a straight fight with a member of the Labour party, and I am therefore in no wise dependent on minority votes.

10.0 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): It is almost exactly seven years ago since the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) and myself were associated together in an Amendment for the rejection of the Proportional Representation Bill which was introduced into this House as a private Bill by Sir Thomas Bramsdon, the then Member for Portsmouth. At that time, there is no doubt that the question of proportional representation was one which exercised Members' minds more actively than it does at the present time, because, not only were the views of Members much less settled than they now are, but the party opposite to me had not then come to any definite decision upon the question. As the result of the rejection of a similar Bill in 1924, the majority against which was almost
entirely composed of Conservative and Labour Members, the question of proportional representation has very largely become academic.
I would like to deal to-night with some of the statement that have been made by different Members in the Debate. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins), who opened the Debate, seemed to suggest that the statement made by the Prime Minister at the time of the election in 1924, was that we were bound, if we were returned to office, to have the policy of electoral reform made the subject of discussion. That is by no means the case. The pledge given by the Prime Minister at the time of the election was on a question dealing with franchise reform, and, as the Government have found that it is possible to introduce a Franchise Bill without the necessity of a conference such as was envisaged at that time, I see no reason for such a discussion. I should think that most Members would be only too thankful that it is possible to settle the question in as easy a way as it now seems. After making that statement, the hon. Member went on to ridicule the terms of the Amendment which has been put down by my three hon. Friends, and he took each of the points in turn—political corruption, instability of the State, the powerlessness of all Governments in office, and the burdening of individual Members of Parliament. He seemed to think that not a single one of those points could be justified by subsequent speakers.
Several of those points have been touched upon by subsequent speakers in the Debate, but I would like to refer to all of them very briefly. Take, first of all, the question of instability. Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that there are a number of countries in Europe which now work under a system of proportional representation. I have a list of some of them here, and it is quite true that a very large number of them are what are described as Nordic countries. Although they number about a dozen, in not a single one of these countries is there a party which has a working majority over all the other parties in their Parliaments. In every case, the government has to be carried on by means of a collection of groups, and nobody is going to tell me that that assists stability. I always believe, and
always have believed, that one of the reasons for the pre-eminence of this country in European politics, and one of the reasons why other nations revere this Mother of Parliaments, is the fact that we, under our existing system of government, have Governments which can govern. I am perfectly convinced if we ever did resort to a system of proportional representation, our status in Europe would steadily decline.
One hon. Member who has sat in this House for a great many years said that he believed in stability. Quite apart from the points which I have just mentioned, I would, remind the House that the revolution in Italy was to some extent due to proportional representation. I will mention another country where a similar happening took place, and that was in Bulgaria. The fact that Bulgaria was unable to obtain a suitable system of government after the War definitely led to the coup d'état in Bulgaria and the subsequent murder of M. Stambouloff, and there can he no doubt that that could very largely be attributed to proportional representation.
I now come to one further criticism which was made against the terms of the Amendment, namely, political corruption, which means the possibility of minorities making bargains. May I remind the House that the whole political history of this country during the latter part of the last century was coloured by the Irish question. There is not the slightest doubt, looking back upon it as we can look upon it now, without prejudice, that had that question been dealt with on its merits and not originally as a political bargain between the Irish Nationalists and Mr. Gladstone, the whole history of this country might have been very different. So far as the burdens upon Members are concerned, I think it is very obvious that not only from the financial point of view but from the point of view of everyday work, the burdens would be enormous under proportional representation. The hon. Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts) suggested that it would be possible even if you had five or seven-member constituencies to sub-divide them, so that each member would be responsible for a certain portion. I have sat for a Glasgow Division and I
now sit for a constituency which is on the edge of Liverpool—two big cities which return a large number of Members, and nobody is going to convince me that if we had an election under proportional representation, we could afterwards artificially divide those cities, towns or big constituencies, returning five or seven members or more into single-member constituencies, for the purpose of the work of individual members. The people in another part of the town would have voted for a particular member, and if he did not take the trouble to take notice of them it would not be likely that he would get any support from them at the next election. In practice, such a proposal is totally impossible. One of the greatest drawbacks of that system would be that the bulk of the work would fall on the young Member who had just got into Parliament, and would not fall on the older Member who had, perhaps, held office, or who relied on his name and his popularity. That would not be an encouragement to the obtaining of suitable candidates for political life.
If we had had proportional representation in. Glasgow in 1900, when Glasgow returned seven Members, Mr. Bonar Law would not have been returned to Parliament, because under proportional representation the Conservatives would have returned only five Members instead of seven, and the Liberal party would have returned two. Of the seven candidates that our party put up at that election, five of them were far better known than Mr. Bonar Law was at that time. Moreover, if we had had proportional representation in operation in 1918 and we had had three five-Member constituencies in Glasgow, Mr. John Maclean, who was at that time one of Labour's extremists in Scotland, and Bolshevik consul for Glasgow, would have been returned to Parliament for the South side of the constituency, in place of Mr. George Barnes. I do not know whether hon. Members think that that would have been an advantage. In either case, I think it would have been a, very great disadvantage, because in one case it would have resulted in one of the greatest leaders this House has had in modern times never coming to this House, and in the second case it would have resulted in the rejection of a man who had served in the War Cabinet and the
election of a man who utterly despised all forms of constitutional government.
10. p.m.
We had a system of limited vote in operation from 1867 to 1885, which was a form of proportional representation, and it was abandoned because it was found that under that system the caucus became so powerful that individuality counted for nothing. Therefore, hon. Members who say that we should have a trial of this system da not realise that we have had a trial of it, and we have found it wanting in practice. One hon. Member suggested that we should try it in local elections. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) pointed out, and I agree with what he said, that we have it in operation in Scotland for the election of the education authorities, and I, speaking as a Conservative, just as the hon. Member spoke from the other point of view, entirely agree with him that the system is not at all satisfactory, and I do not think that it is of any benefit to education in Scotland.
A further point which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins) criticised in the Amendment is the suggestion that Proportional Representation would lead to the powerlessness of Governments. He asks how we could tell that Governments are likely to be powerless under that system. I have endeavoured to show that in every country in Europe where the system is in operation, the Government is carried on by means of a group of parties, and I do not think that that system is one which is in any way conducive to making Governments more powerful. It is a remarkable fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 8th April, 1921, which is the report of the Second Reading of the Proportional Representation Bill, at the end of the Debate there is a short note with regard to the failure of the coal negotiations, with a statement made by the then Prime Minister, and an account of the emergency defence measures which were taken, and the Royal Proclamation calling up the reserves. That note is remarkable because it shows how necessary it is to have a Government in office, with a working majority behind it, which can govern. If the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at that time had had behind him perhaps a
majority of 20 or 30 Members or been dependent for his office on several groups representing different interests, do hon. Members think that he could have dealt with the situation which arose at that time in the way he did? Does any hon. Member think, irrespective of its merits, that the Government could have dealt with the situation in 1926 in the way they did had they had no stable majority behind them, but only groups of different parties, in no way bound together by a common tie. One of the reasons why European Governments have had so much trouble since the War is because of this very system of proportional representation. It nearly brought the Government of Belgium to a complete standstill. Therefore I think my hon. Friends are perfectly justified in saying in the terms of their Amendment that this alternative system is likely to lead to the powerlessness of Governments in office.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) said that under the existing system, votes were wasted. I do not want to weary the House by going into details of the working of the system of proportional representation. Anybody who knows anything about it knows that you can read extracts from the regulations which make it totally incomprehensible, and even under proportional representation votes are wasted. You do not take all the preferences which electors give and utilise them. You only take a proportion of the surplus votes taken from candidates who are at the bottom of the poll, and surplus votes taken from the bottom are of more value than surplus votes taken from candidates at the top. That is as much open to objection as the existing system. I also agree with the hon. Member for Dundee that no system of proportional representation has yet been designed which can in any way deal with the question of by-elections. It would only lead to a number of different sectional interests being elected to this House, who are not likely to serve the interests of the nation half so well as Members who come here under the existing system.
The hon. Member for Oldham, who worked with me on the Estimates Committee, and for whom I have a great regard, was much too canny to definitely tie himself up to something from which he could not afterwards get
out. He did not definitely state which particular form of alternative scheme he would like to adopt. He expressed criticism of the present system and then proceeded to express criticism of proportional representation. He criticised the second ballot, and then proceeded to express rather less criticism of the alternative vote. Personally, I see just as great danger in the alternative vote and the second ballot as I do in proportional representation, because all these schemes do not take into account the human element. The second ballot is dependent on people taking the trouble and voting the second time within a week. In France they may do that, hut you are not going to do it in this country, and it will simply result in Members being returned to this House by minorities. Apart from that there is the fact that the expenses of elections will be much greater.
So far as the alternative vote is concerned you cannot compel, and you never will compel, a voter to vote for more than one person if they do not wish to, and there are a large number of people who hold such strong political convictions that they will not vote for more than one candidate. While it may be easy for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) to suggest that voting should be, made compulsory in this country, he is a much cleverer man than I take him to be if he thinks he can devise any system by which he can compel voters to vote for more than one person if they do not want to do so. I do not think any one of the alternative suggestions, there are only three, is in any way open to less objection than the existing system. The hon. Member for Hereford seemed to think that proportional representation was a sort of safeguard against revolution. I have not been in politics a great many years, but I have been long enough to realise that no legislation which any party in the world chooses to pass through this House will ever prevent a revolution if the country is going to have it. If the people of this country decide in a fit of lunacy that they will have a revolution no kind of Act upon the Statute Book will stop it. If hon. Members think that the system of proportional representation is likely to stop revolution I would draw their attention to the experience of Bulgaria. The hon. Member for Oldham
in concluding his speech said that by voting for the Motion we were not committed to anything, but may I point out to him that by voting for this Motion we are committed to a condemnation of the existing system?

Mr. WIGGINS: I agree.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not see why we should condemn it. The question whether any electoral system is satisfactory or not is not merely a question of arithmetic. You have to take into account the human element. All parties who fail at elections are inclined to look at alternative systems. I have heard proportional representation described as the refuge of the politically destitute. I will not be so rude as that, but there is a germ of truth in the suggestion. If you take the human element into consideration I think the present system is a far better system than any other which has yet been devised. The real test of any system of political representation is whether it provides a better form of government. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said that he wanted to make votes more effective. All votes are ineffective if they do not result in an effective system of government, and the great advantage of the present system is that it provides a government which will govern. The great test, after all, is to have some system by which we can have effective action, and I am convinced that under the present system, open to criticism as it is, we have the best system which we can devise for the government of this country. It is one by which governments are able to govern and the prestige of this country is maintained. For that reason I hope the House will reject the Motion and support the Amendment.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the House, presumably on behalf of the Government, has told us that he has not been in politics for many years. He has made a very remarkable speech. Let me deal with his concluding remarks, because they have been made by several other speakers, including the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who, after producing the most extraordinary piece of gerrymandering of figures that I have ever listened to, and after having dealt with what he thought would he inevitable corruption in politics
under the system we propose, concluded his speech, somewhat rhetorically I admit, by saying that we were actuated purely by motives of self-defence, that we desire to prevent our effacement. It is obviously true that under any such system such as we are discussing to-night the Liberal party stands to gain more than anybody else, and any capital which hon. Members may care to make out of that statement they are entitled to. Now I turn to the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the somewhat extraordinary excursus he gave on the question of revolution. He said that if people were going to have a revolution it would not matter what electoral system was in force, they would have it. Does he really believe that considerable bodies of people set out with the intention of having a revolution, and then look round for an excuse for it? He told us that the rise of the Fascisti régime in Italy followed certain troubles which were largely or partly due to proportional representation. He said that the same was true of Bulgaria. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that? Does he mean that proportional representation was the cause and revolution was the effect?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I did not say it was the cause. I said it was in part due.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that revolution is in part caused by proportional representation? Let me remind him of another country in which there has been a revolution, and one in which hon. Members opposite take considerable interest. I mean Russia. There you had what the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls a strong Government. There was no such nonsense as proportional representation or the alternative vote there. I happened to have been there when they had the pretence of Parliamentary government. That was a Government which could govern, and that was what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants.

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, I did not say that.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants a Government which is always sure of a majority, whose
decisions can be carried out. In the Puma he had it. I think we are much more justified on this side in saying that that electoral system led directly to revolution than the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to say that proportional representation was even partly the cause of it in Italy or Bulgaria. I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member in his researches into the origins of the Irish question, but when the hon. and gallant Member suggests that the Irish question in the early days became an acute political question because of a bargain between the late Mr. Gladstone and the Irish party, I must remind him of what the present Foreign Secretary said, I think, in 1922, at the annual Conference of Conservative Associations. The right hon. Gentleman then said that it might have been better if the Conservative party had followed Mr. Gladstone's advice in 1885. So far from it becoming an acute political question because of a bargain, corrupt or otherwise, between Mr. Gladstone and the Irish party, we on these benches are far more entitled to say that it became an acute party question because of the desire to use religious bigotry as a political weapon in General Elections in England. But that, of course, is not dealing with the point of the Motion before the House. The Motion does not deal with the merits of this, that or the other system by which a difference can be made. It does deal with the complaint against the present system. Until the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford got up, we had not heard really a defence of the present system. No one had ventured to say that the present electoral system returned a House of Commons that represented numerically the wishes of the people of the country.
I would remind the House, and particularly I would remind hon. Members of the Labour party, that at the last General Election, if a line were drawn between the mouth of the Thames and the mouth of the Severn, south of that line one million Liberal votes were cast and there was only one Liberal Member returned, the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha); and there were nearly one million Labour votes cast and not a single Labour Member was returned. Illustrations of that kind can
be multiplied. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford, says it is no good taking the masses of votes given. He says he has a better plan than that. He proposes to select only those constituencies in which there were three-cornered fights—which means that he selects little more than one-fifth of the present House of Commons, and he says that if we consider those figures, and those figures only, and if we give all the 79 elected members to the Opposition, the Conservative party would still have a majority.

Captain BOURNE: I did not say that we should select the constituencies where there were three-cornered fights, but that we should select the constituencies where there were three-cornered fights and where the sitting Member did not obtain a majority of the votes. The two things are not quite the same.

Mr. CRAWFURD: In other words, the hon. and gallant Member would reduce the number still further. He would take a still smaller proportion of the total votes than I thought. I thank him for the correction. But assuming that there is some basis for the statement and that if he takes less than one-fifth of the total, and argues from the one-fifth, he proves his conclusion as to the whole—supposing that were true—let me ask him this question. Taking his three-cornered fights, does he believe that under the present electoral system the votes given in all three-cornered contests are always given by the voters to the candidates whom they would. soonest see in the House of Commons? One of the worst results of our present system is that this is not so. Let me remind hon. Members opposite of two recent by-elections, Middlesbrough and St. Ives. Although I confess I have never myself, after four years, been able to discover their warrant for it, the party opposite always describe themselves as the anti-Socialist party. They spend most of their Parliamentary time helping the Socialist party, but at any rate they are supposed to be the anti-Socialist party, and at the last Election they obtained at any rate a large amount of their majority by creating a fear complex among the voters and by using the party above the Gangway as a bogy. The party above the Gangway, on the other hand, are always very voluble in
their denunciations of the Government of the day. Remembering those facts, let us consider what happened at Middlesbrough and St. Ives.
You had in both cases the possibility, shall I say, of the return of the Liberal candidate. I just put it as a possibility. In Middlesbrough, however, it was the Socialist party which hoped to win the seat, and, on the whole, between the two, had the better chance of winning the seat. At St. Ives it was hon. Members opposite who thought their party was going to win the seat and had a better chance than the Socialist party. Therefore, at Middlesbrough it would have helped hon. Members above the Gangway, had a certain number of the electors voted Conservative instead of Liberal, while at St. Ives it would have helped hon. Members opposite if more of the electorate voted Socialist than had been considered possible at one time. So there is this result of this extraordinary system of ours. You have these sworn enemies, and at Middlesbrough you had the Socialists praying nightly that more people would vote Conservative and at St. Ives you had Conservatives going down on their knees and hoping that more people would vote Socialist.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member has said that at the last General Election there was a campaign of fear instituted by hon. Members opposite, that the Socialist party were an electoral bogy. Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made the fullest possible us of that bogy in his speeches?

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. Member will allow me to say that I am not responsible for the speeches of my right hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I am only responsible for what I say at an election. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to their full meed of enjoyment, but, having had their laugh, let them remember, and let the hon. Gentleman who asked the question remember, that even if it were true that all speeches made by Liberal candidates made use of that bogy, and even if they never said anything else during the whole election, the facts that I have stated would still be true. It would not affect my argument in the slightest that that is what was done, and, as I say, at those two recent
by-elections, we had those curious facts. The hon. and gallant Member who replied on behalf of the Government——

Major PRICE: Does the hon. Member mean that St. Ives and Middlesbrough are wrongly represented now?

Mr. CRAWFURD: It is a perfectly fair question, and I will admit that it is possible that they may be. As long as you have minority Members returned, that possibility is always there, and nobody on these benches will deny it. I am very glad that in the course of the Debate we have brought the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) to see the danger of this.

Major PRICE: I fail to see the danger in either of the hon. Members who were returned in those two cases.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. and gallant Member is right. Nobody would see any danger whatever in those particular examples, but, in general, he will see that dangers might arise. All that we are asking is that there should be an inquiry into the various methods, for seeing that over the country as a whole, and not over one particular section, the representation in this House should correspond to the electoral strength of the different parties. Some hon. Members opposite who have spoken, and particularly the hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the Government, expressed themselves on the whole as satisfied with the present system, and the Amendment talks about
the proved wisdom of the present system of voting at elections.
I need not remind the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford—who not only represents Oxford in this House, but has had the advantage of the educational facilities that are offered there and, indeed, has given us an example this evening of the results of his study—of the meaning of what is called a question-begging epithet, and that when you set out to prove something you do not get very much further by starting and talking about "the proved wisdom." That is what hon. Members have to prove. They go on to say in their Amendment,
declines to countenance the adoption of any new devices which must inevitably add to the dangers of political corruption.
When the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford was speaking, he said, "Supposing you had some system where you are demanding for your Government various groups. Look at, foreign countries, lock at France." Incidentally, of course, France has never had proportional representation, certainly not in the sense in which it has been advocated in this country. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that M. Poincaré is a very ardent advocate of the system of proportional representation in France. The hon. and gallant Member said, "Look at these foreign countries. When a Bill goes through, although it may not be wanted by the mass of the people, what happens is that one group says to another, 'You come along and vote for my Bill, and I will vote for something that you want.' How does the hon. and gallant Member think his own party is made up? It is nothing but a series of groups. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all united."] Yes, united in appearance, but the unity in the Lobby, as shown by hon. Members opposite, does not in the least correspond to real unity in the party.
I suggest that in the present House of Commons, on a dozen occasions, hon. Members opposite have voted against their wishes. I will give some examples. Take, for instance, the Bill introduced early in this Parliament by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), the Bill which was the precursor of the Trade Disputes Act. Hon. Members opposite refrained from supporting that Bill. That really is not what they wanted to do. Take the Electricity Bill. Will any hon. Member on that side get up and say that everybody who voted for that Bill wanted it? I am not saying that the majority did not. What I am saying is that large groups have voted against their convictions. I do not want to put this point in any offensive way at all. I withdraw the word "convictions" and I will say "opinions," and I will admit at once that under the present system of government, not only must hon. Members who are supporting a Government vote against their opinions, but they are justified in doing so, because hon. Members will vote for one thing which they do not really want, in order to maintain in power a Government which, on the whole, they do want, and in doing so they are not
doing anything discreditable at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are justifying the present system."] I am not justifying the present system. Take, again, the Debate last night. Those hon. Members who were present will not deny that the whole of the Members on the benches opposite, almost to a man, were opposed to the policy which was being laid down by the Government spokesmen.
Supposing that last night, instead of discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill, we had been discussing some question on which we could have gone to a Division. Would all those hon. Members have voted against the Government? No. Under the present system, you do not get a really strong Government, taking a long view of these matters, unless the Government rule as the majority of the people wish it. The hon. and gallant Member tells me that I am justifying the present system by what I am saying. Does he think the present system is justified on the ground of stability? Does any hon. Member think so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Then I will put this question. At the present moment there is no stability at all in the Government of this country. If you ask hon. Members opposite what is going to be the result of the next General Election, they know perfectly well it is a gamble. Will anybody deny that if, before the last General Election, they had not made the find which proved so profitable to them the result would have been very different? There is no question about that. If hon. Members really think that government as we have it to-day is stable, let me suggest two points to them. I take it we all admit that it is a good thing that Government should be stable. It is a good thing that if change must come it should be steady and even, not too violent or too rapid. I assume that is what they mean by stable government. The mere fact of having a large majority may mean a tyrannous government. It did in Russia. It may mean a government that always gets its way, but it does not necessarily mean a government that governs according to the wishes of the people. It does not even mean a government that governs according to the wishes of its followers. So far from there being stable government we get the very
reverse, simply because under the present system the result of a General Election must be a gamble.
I am going to give two instances. If there are two spheres in which, above all others, we should agree about the need of stable government, I would say they are foreign affairs and matters concerned with trade. Take the question of foreign affairs, particularly in relation to Russia. Has the attitude of this country over the last six years been stable with regard to Russia? Nobody can suggest for a moment that it has been stable. The right hon. Gentleman behind me, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) knows what I mean. The instability has led to difficulties both in this country and in Russia. It led to difficulties at Genoa and at Geneva, and it has led to difficulties all over Russia. I am not arguing those matters on their merits. I am merely saying that whether right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party were right in their treatment of the Russian question, or whether hon. Members opposite were right, the one thing that was wrong was that we should swing backwards and forwards.from one extreme to the other.
Take the question of trade. During the Coalition Government, of which I was not a lover, there were imposed what were called the McKenna Duties. When the Labour Government came in the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) removed those duties. When the present Government came in those duties were put back. Other duties have been put on by the present Government. With a change of colour in the Government, they will be taken off again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No fear!"] That is just where hon. Members are wrong. Under the present system we are bound to get sudden changes of policy in Government, and I suggest that for the business community, for manufacturers, for merchants, for traders, and certainly for consumers, it is a bad thing to have sudden reversals every three or four years. Yes, but the reversals are just as bad one way as the other. Either side may be right, but we should change from one system to the other. Even under the present system we have not got stable government. I admit at once that, if as a result of such an inquiry as we desire, there should be a recommendation
for a change of Government, other things would follow. The hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Sir V. Henderson) referred to a criticism made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins), relating to the Prime Minister's pledge on this question that there should a conference on the franchise, and the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle says:
We did not have a conference because we found it possible to proceed without one.
You can always evade a pledge by breaking it.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member really has no right to say that. If the question of the franchise had not been settled satisfactorily——

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Who said it was settled satisfactorily?

Sir V. HENDERSON: If the question had not been settled satisfactorily without a conference I think there would have been more antagonism to the proposals contained in the Franchise Bill which we have introduced than has yet been shown.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Who settled it? As, a matter of fact it is not settled yet, and I will venture to add the Franchise Bill to the list of occasions which I gave just now in which hon. Members opposite are going to be coerced, not necessarily by the Government but by the system under which they vote for a thing which they do not want. I again repeat that there was a very definite pledge given by the Prime Minister that there would be a conference on the franchise. More than once during the first two years of this Parliament questions were put from this side of the House asking whether these matters of electoral reform would be included in the questions to be dealt with by the conference, and we received evasive answers. Now the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle says that it has been found possible to do without a conference, and we find that it will be impossible to raise many of the things which we wanted to raise because the Prime Minister's pledge has been evaded by breaking it. I repeat that the system under which we live and under which we are governed does not give us a House of Commons that corresponds to the wishes of the people. Very often at elections there are people voting not for
somebody in particular, but in order to keep somebody out. That cannot be helped unless you have a system where there is an alternative vote, proportional representation, or any other system which would give us a House of Commons which corresponds to the voting strength of the various parties in the country. If you tell me that what I suggest will lead to unstable government, I say that the very reverse is true.
At present you have unstable government; you have the chances and gambles of an election. If you had the kind of House of Commons which I foresee, and which I am perfectly certain will come, the days would be gone when a Government would be able to override its supporters by the threat of a general election. You have Governments in power which do not necessarily represent the majority of parties in the country. We have heard a good deal to-night about the Nordic races. If hon. Members opposite will take the trouble to examine the recent history of Parliament in Norway and Sweden, they will see in Sweden a very admirable example of what we mean by the kind of system which produces stable government. There you had all the conditions which in this country produce three elections in two years, and, by the operation of a system of this kind——

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Which kind?

Mr. CRAWFURD: A system which enables a House of Commons to be elected——

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: What kind of system?

Mr. CRAWFURD: If the hon. and gallant Member asks a question, he must have the courtesy to listen to the answer. I mean a system which enables a House of Commons to be elected corresponding in its complexion to the votes cast for the various parties in the country. Is the hon. and gallant Member satisfied?

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I have been listening very attentively to the hon. Member for the last 20 minutes in order to gather whether he is in favour of proportional representation. If he is, and I think he is, how can he agree with the Mover of this Motion, who says he is not?

Mr. CRAWFURD: If the hon. and gallant Member, instead of listening so
attentively to me for 20 minutes, had read attentively for 20 seconds the Motion on the Paper, he would have seen the answer to his question. I may use this system or that system to illustrate my point. What I am saying is that in Sweden there is a system of that kind, and, under the operation of that system——

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Which kind?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Of the kind which I have just described to the hon. and gallant Member. Under a system of that kind, you have had, in difficult electoral circumstances, stable government. By stable government we mean——

Sir V. HENDERSON: During the last 17 years, when Sweden has been working under proportional representation, not a single one of the eight elections which have taken place has resulted in a single party obtaining a working majority.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am more than grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his interruption. That is exactly the difficulty in which he is. He thinks that stable government means what he calls a working majority. I would, however, put this point to him. After all, he says he has ben associated with my hon. Friend for many years, and so he must have learned a lot of sense. I put this to him as a plain, commonsense man, using the word "stable" in the way in which he and I would both understand it. Stable government means government which enables the policy of your country to be continuous, without violent fluctuations. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that that would be obtained by, let us say, a series of eight general elections, which was the number he quoted, four of which were won by the party opposite with a working majority, and four by the Labour party with a working majority? Would that produce stable government?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Under our system we do not have eight elections in 17 years.

Mr. CRAWFURD: That is one in two years, but we have three in two years, so it does not work out very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. [Interruption.] Another hon. Member provides
me with a further point. I agree that we have not had eight elections in 17 years, but the hon. Member must now realise that we are face to face with a position in which we have three parties in the State. [Interruption.] I imagine hon. Members will concede that if there ever was a chance of a party disappearing, it was our party, but we have not disappeared and, as far as probabilities go, you have now got to face government under a three-party system. I am bound to say that as I follow the fortunes of by-elections and the admirable, philosophic speeches of the Prime Minister, one thing has struck me with amazement, and that is that the Prime Minister has never yet seen fit to take the people of the country into his confidence and tell them what are the prospects of government under a three-party system. There has been no instruction of the electors as to what may conceivably happen. The difference between the period before the War, when in fact there were three Elections in two years, and now, is the difference between two-party and three-party government.
I say, finally, that the system which we are contemplating is one in which you will not have a Prime Minister allowed practically to dictate when there shall be a general election and in which the King's Government may be carried on by a combination of parties—and not necessarily by a corrupt combination, because under those circumstances hon. Members will have far more independence. One hon. Member said that perhaps there would be no legislation at all. If nobody wants it, why should there be? If two parties combine together to form a Government, then you will have legislation which is the greatest common measure of opinion of those two parties, and that will be the greatest common measure of the opinion of the people of the country. As far as the Debate has gone, I think we are entitled to say two things: First of all, that for the second day running we have provided the House of Commons with a live Debate. If hon. Members really want to know what I mean, it is the difference between the House of Commons as we conceive it might be, and the House of Commons which it has been under this strong Government, listless ineffective and inefficient——

Mr. E. BROWN: With 200 Tories away every week.

Mr. CRAWFURD: There was an occasion only two days ago when the Conservative party was represented by two Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "And no Liberals."] There was an occasion yesterday when the benches above the Gangway were represented by only a few Members. Nobody will contradict this, that the great majority enjoyed by the present Government has meant a bad House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and an ineffective House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a bad Opposition."] No, not a bad Opposition, but not enough opposition. In contrast with that, I would ask hon. Members opposite to remember the Debate which we had last Session in this House on the Prayer

Book. I am not thinking of the merits of the question at all, but there was a Debate when the present conditions of Government were absent. There were no Government whips and no strong Government functioning. There was no stability. You had a Debate where every Member who spoke, spoke as he felt, and every Member who voted, voted as he believed. Under the system which we are recommending, that kind of House of Commons would always be elected, and it is because we believe that it is by that means only in the long run that you will get good, stable and representative Government, that we press this Motion upon the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 205.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
sitch, Charles H.


Brlant, Frank
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Viant, S. P.


England, Colonel A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris. R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Forrest, W.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G, M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Robinson. Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Fenby.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ellis, R. G.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Burman, J. B.
Finburgh, S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Fraser, Captain Ian


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.


Ammon, Charles George
Carver, Major W. H.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cassels. J. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Apsley, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gates, Percy


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Atkinson, C.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gillett, George M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyrll
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Compton, Joseph
Goff, Sir Park


Batey, Joseph
Cope, Major William
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Couper, J. B.
Grace, John


Bennett, A. J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bethel, A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Groves, T.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Day, Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Duncan, C.
Hamilton, Sir George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dunnico, H.
Hardle, George D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harland, A.


Bromley, J.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hartington, Marquess of


Haslam, Henry C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Scrymgeour, E.


Hayday, Arthur
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sexton, James


Hayes, John Henry
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Margesson, Captain D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Snell, Harry


Hills, Major John Waller
Montague, Frederick
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Storry-Deans, R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Naylor, T. E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sutton, J. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Oakley, T.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tinker, John Joseph


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Paling, W.
Tinne, J. A.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Parkinson, John Allen (wlgan)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Penny, Frederick George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waddington, R.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pownall, Sir Astheton
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kennedy, T.
Raine, Sir Walter
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawrence, Susan
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wells, S. R.


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, J.


Lee, F.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
White, Lieut-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Little, Dr. E. Graham,
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lowth, T.
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lumley, L. R.
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfeild)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Maclean, Nall (Glasgow, Govan)
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Gerald Hurst and Major Price.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. E. BROWN rose——

It being after Eleven o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.